Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, American businesses and American citizens face a growing number of cybercrimes. Cybercrime is a particularly complicated form of criminal conduct and one that costs Americans billions of dollars a year in theft.

This bill would require the Attorney General to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to develop a method for categorizing different types of cybercrime. The Attorney General would also establish a cybercrime category in the National Incident-Based Reporting System so that States can better report cybercrime data to the Federal Government.

The bill would also require the Bureau of Justice Statistics to include cybercrime victimization questions in the National Crime Victimization Survey. There is no question that we must do more to bring cybercriminals to justice.

In August of 2021, the Biden administration released a notorious Russian cybercriminal early from Federal custody. The individual is described as, ``one of the most connected and skilled malicious hackers ever apprehended by the U.S. authorities.'' And for unknown reasons, the administration let him out of Federal prison early and shipped him back to Moscow.

We have asked the Biden administration's Justice Department for more information about this early release of this cybercriminal, but we have received nothing as of yet. Similarly, we don't have enough information to determine whether this legislation will bring more cybercriminals to justice. We haven't heard from relevant stakeholders on these issues, and we haven't held hearings with experts to determine whether this is the right step at this time.

This bill would require GAO to submit a report to Congress that assesses the effectiveness of reporting mechanisms for cybercrime and disparities in reporting data between cybercrime and other types of crime.

Why aren't we starting with that?

Why are we making changes to cybercrime reporting mechanisms before the GAO can evaluate whether the existing reporting mechanisms are effective?

It makes more sense for us to have hearings, evaluate GAO's findings, and hear from experts. Then we can examine whether the other provisions of this bill are necessary and appropriate.

In another instance of putting the cart before the horse, the Committee on the Judiciary is scheduled to hear from Bryan A. Vorndran, the assistant director of Cyber Division at the FBI tomorrow. Perhaps we should have waited to see what he had to say before rushing this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3359, the Homicide Victims' Families' Rights Act of 2021. This bill creates a process for relatives of homicide victims to request that Federal agencies rereview the case of their lost family member once the case has gone cold.

To be clear, this bill would only apply to Federal cases of murder, and it wouldn't apply to murder cases investigated by State and local law enforcement, which are most cases.

The majority of cold cases at issue under this bill are likely to be cases arising from Tribal jurisdictions. Fortunately, President Trump already took steps to try to solve cold cases in Tribal jurisdictions. In November of 2019, President Trump signed an executive order to create the Operation Lady Justice Task Force.

In its first year, this task force opened seven offices across the country to address the number of missing and murdered indigenous women. The task force held listening sessions, Tribal consultations, webinars, meetings with law enforcement, and victims' services programs, and formed domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions.

The task force put out guidance and protocols, developed relationships with entities like missing persons clearinghouses, began training for investigators and volunteers, and started a public awareness campaign. This was all in 2020.

This legislation is cut from similar cloth as President Trump's executive order creating that task force. Hopefully, it will motivate the Biden administration to continue President Trump's good work.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1621, the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021.

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution ensures that criminal defendants have the right to a trial by jury. This right is so important that our Founding Fathers preserved it in the Bill of Rights. It is a hallmark of our great country and one of the many things that separates us from other countries.

Our commitment to trial by jury means we accept the jury's decision whether we agree with it or not.

This bill would prohibit Federal judges from increasing a defendant's sentence based on conduct for which the defendant had been acquitted by a jury.

In 1987, the United States Sentencing Commission established Federal sentencing guidelines. These guidelines allow judges to consider conduct that was not formally charged or proven beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial, so long as the judge finds the conduct relevant by a preponderance of the evidence.

There are numerous examples of this happening. Judges have intervened to overrule the determinations of juries and have handed down harsher sentences after considering conduct for which the defendants have been charged and acquitted.

Allowing judges to consider acquitted conduct punishes people for a crime for which they have not been convicted. It is wrong and violates the spirit of our Bill of Rights.

Both Justice Kavanaugh and the late Justice Antonin Scalia recognized the fundamental unfairness of using acquitted conduct at sentencing. Both said it must stop.

In 2015, as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, then-Judge Kavanaugh wrote: ``Allowing judges to rely on acquitted or uncharged conduct to impose higher sentences than they otherwise would impose seems a dubious infringement on the rights to due process and to a jury trial.''

I agree with Justice Scalia and Justice Kavanaugh.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to recommit H.R. 936 and have my amendment that strikes the retroactivity provision of this bill included in the Record.

It is wrong, clearly not right, for Congress to step in and retroactively invalidate parts of millions of existing contracts. The parties to those contracts, in good faith, relied on those parts of their contracts when they struck their bargain. But if this bill becomes law, it will rewrite millions of existing contracts, which will lead to waves of new litigation.

This litigation will place new costs on businesses, consumers, and employees, who will be forced to pay more for lawyers, hundreds of dollars per hour and may get stuck for years in long court battles instead of having available the solution of arbitration.

Applying new laws retroactively undermines the rule of law and upends the certainty that parties are trying to create when they negotiate and enter into a contract.

My motion would make this bill apply only to agreements entered into after this bill goes into effect. I offered this amendment at the markup in the Judiciary Committee, but the Democrats there rejected it.

I offered this amendment to the Rules Committee, but the Democrats there chose not to make it in order.

I offer this amendment for a third time here on the floor of this House because this matter is critically important. Retroactively voiding millions upon millions of existing contracts is truly bad policy.

By making this bill apply only to future contracts, we can avoid the inherent unfairness of having Congress directly interfere in millions upon millions of existing agreements. I urge my colleagues to support my motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, if we adopt this motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on the Judiciary to consider again my amendment to H.R. 963 to ensure that the Democrats' attempt to eviscerate arbitration will not apply retroactively to the millions upon millions of contractual agreements already in place.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

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

Madam Speaker, outdated and complicated permitting processes, excess paperwork, environmental impact statements, and years-long litigation processes have delayed or prevented projects all across Oregon, especially in my district, which covers more than two- thirds of the State.

Federal permitting involves too many agencies and too many bureaucrats. As far as Federal agencies are concerned, there are no consequences for time lost or money spent. Nowhere is this problem more pronounced than in forest management.

For decades, Congress has stacked process upon process, creating more and more red tape for agencies to deal with. Of course we want to know what the impact of a project will be. However, when the processes of determining that impact stall action for up to 20 years, the system is obviously broken.

With over 70 million acres of our national forest at high or moderate risk of wildfire, there is an urgent need to reduce the amount of unneeded and dangerous fuel. We have seen the tragic results of inaction as millions of acres of our beautiful forests burn each year, including over 10 million acres in 2020 alone and over 7 million acres in 2021.

In my home State of Oregon, over a million acres burned last year in the Labor Day fires. Last summer, smoke from the massive Oregon Bootleg Fire spread across the entire United States, visibly fouling the air and poisoning people even here in Washington, D.C.

The Biden administration issued a 10-year plan acknowledging the wildfire and forest health crisis and calling for treatment of an additional 20 million acres of the National Forest System, a fraction of what is actually necessary. Congress recently provided the Forest Service with over $6 billion in the bipartisan Infrastructure and Jobs Act to increase hazardous fuels reduction and forest restoration activities. The agency, however, remains buried in red tape, endless analysis, and frivolous litigation.

A 2014 GAO report found that the United States Forest Service did more of the most costly and time-consuming NEPA reviews than any other Federal agency. These National Environmental Policy Act reviews often require the Forest Service to spend over $1 million to complete paperwork, and then they take an average of almost 5 years to merely authorize small and inconsequential forest thinning projects intended to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire to our forests and communities.

While precious time is wasted, massive wildfires rage on, dumping billions of tons of toxic, cancer-causing pollution into our air. This is an environmental disaster rapidly becoming a nightmare.

Congress must take action to give the Forest Service additional tools to reduce the time, cost, and litigation that delay the agency from authorizing and implementing these critical projects. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Resilient Federal Forests Act, which would do just that.

Earlier this year, I expressed my concern on this very floor about the so-called River Democracy Act currently pending in the Senate. It would place new management restrictions on some 3 million acres of Federal land in Oregon by establishing a 1-mile wild and scenic buffer along some 4,700 miles of creeks and, in some areas, dry gulches.

The Forest Service recently reported that over half of the 2 million Forest Service acres of land impacted by this act is at high risk for wildfire. Treating these acres only becomes more difficult, if not impossible, with these types of designations.

It is time to overhaul our Nation's permitting and NEPA process. Current laws and agency rules hand far too much power to litigation groups that use sue and settle tactics to profit off our tax dollars by delaying and, in some cases, preventing important restoration projects.

We need serious, thoughtful reform to put an end to this abuse. I am glad my colleagues share my determination to make that happen, and hopefully it will be a bipartisan process.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 192, the so- called River Democracy Act.

This bill, contrary to what the title implies, has nothing to do with democracy.

Instead, it would, if passed, label some 4,700 miles of Oregon's rivers, creeks, and streams as ``wild and scenic.'' A more appropriate phrase would be just waiting to be burned and ruined.

However, this is not your typical wild and scenic river bill. This bill would designate a mile-wide corridor running the length of every inch of those 4,700 miles of waterways as wild and scenic. This mile is double the half-mile-wide corridor normal for such designations. This means that under this act, 4,700 square miles--an area about the size of Connecticut--would be locked up and left to the high probability of burning up.

Many of the miles of streams, creeks, and gullies to which the bill would apply are within the 20 counties making up my district. Many of those miles run through Oregon's most important watersheds, which are absolutely essential to the life of my communities, particularly in times of drought. Given the damaging impact of such designations to activities necessary to protect these streams, it is no wonder this bill is deeply unpopular, something that has been made crystal clear to me by the overwhelming majority of my 62 county commissioners. They have serious and unanswered concerns about the dangers the act presents.

Chief among them is that this designation will prevent what needs to be done to protect these watersheds, placing them in a bureaucratic wasteland where it will take years, if not decades, to initiate and then complete plans which may or may not allow the treatment activities needed right now.

Also, a top-down approach to land management is wrong because it completely ignores the interests of well-informed local people, businesses, and stakeholders.

The approach the bill's sponsors used in developing this bill was seriously flawed because the river and stream nominations were solicited from various groups and the general public without any clear legal or scientific analysis to identify those rivers, streams, and creeks that would qualify as scenic. If a scientific or legal analysis exists, the sponsors should share it.

Additionally, the public deserves to know which special interest groups crafted the bill, provided the unofficial maps of the streams affected, and conducted the outreach to the public.

It is absolutely clear, whatever the process was, that local stakeholders, elected officials, county commissioners, landowners, users, and experts should have been consulted, and they were not.

Let me explain why so many who truly want to protect our public lands are so outraged by this bill.

So far this year, over half a million acres of forests and other lands have burned up in my district. Last year it was even worse with over a million acres laid to waste by fire.

Inexplicably, the bill focuses upon only one method of protecting this 4,700-square-mile proposed area from fire, and that is by what are called ``prescribed burns.'' I cannot emphasize how dangerous it is to prescribe prescribed burns in overgrown, densely packed, dry forests without thinning the forest first. Prescribed burning before thinning puts at extreme risk the very rivers and watersheds this designation is supposed to protect. It is like dropping a match in a tinderbox. It is impossible to contain these types of fires once they start.

The River Democracy Act, if passed, would threaten watersheds, homes, businesses, ranches, livestock, and most importantly, human lives.

The bill contains provisions throughout that leave the door wide open for frivolous litigation by far-left special interest groups, who have profited for years from lucrative sue-and-settle tactics.

The bill contains no explicit protections for the current multiple uses of the land, including sustainable timber harvests, hunting, grazing, fishing, and mining.

Regardless of legislative intent, the applicable agencies will have broad authorities to restrict these activities.

To date, no official maps have been provided. Oregonians need to have access to clear official maps to see just how much land is affected by this bill. I believe no further action should be taken with regard to this bill until the questions I have raised today and necessary maps are made available to the public so that Oregonians know exactly what this bill would do.

Madam Speaker, American families and businesses across our country are facing a crisis, a crisis of inflation, the likes of which we have not seen for more than 30 years. Last month, the Consumer Price Index hit a 30-year high.

What does this mean for everyday Americans? Gas prices are up 50 percent from last year. Food prices are rising to the highest level in 12 years. The price of eggs is up 42 percent. The price of milk is up 17 percent. The price of a new car is up $5,000. Home prices are going through the roof.

Last week, I met with farmers and ranchers in central Oregon who are paying far more for fertilizer, feed, fuel, herbicides, and all crop inputs. This is on top of the incredible difficulties caused by historic drought, supply chain disruptions, and a shocking shortage of labor.

Given all this, what are President Biden and Speaker Pelosi doing to address the biggest inflationary spike in decades? Well, they have no plan except to spend even more trillions of our tax dollars on more and probably irreversible welfare programs.

The $2 trillion spending bill would raise taxes, increase our national debt, and drive inflation even higher. Sadly, American families will pay for this bill one way or another--but most immediately, right now, through inflated prices on everything from diesel fuel to the Thanksgiving turkey.

The $2 trillion Build Back Better bill is on top of the $1.9 trillion spent in March and the $1.2 trillion spent a few weeks ago. Even former officials from the Obama administration have warned that these unprecedented levels of spending will result in higher inflation. American farmers are now warning that this spending bill could result in the demise of many family farms and ranches.

Spending trillions upon trillions of dollars will cause more crippling inflation for American families and businesses. This radical reconciliation bill would not help us build back better. Instead, it will damage my State and our Nation for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4035, the Real Justice for Our Veterans Act of 2021.

Unfortunately, many of our Nation's veterans suffer from substance abuse disorders, mental health conditions, and trauma. According to data from the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 60 percent of combat veterans in our Nation's prisons have reported mental health disorders.

Veterans treatment court programs are modeled after other specialized treatment court programs, such as drug treatment courts to provide services specific to meet the unique needs of veterans. Veterans treatment courts are not only designed to benefit veterans in the criminal justice system, but taxpayers as well.

These treatment programs lower recidivism for participants who complete them, saving money that otherwise would have been spent on incarceration.

H.R. 4035 will expand data collection on these treatment programs to ensure that our veterans are getting the most effective treatment possible.

H.R. 4035 also authorizes pilot programs to make grants to improve retention rates in veterans treatment court programs. It allows veterans in jurisdictions that do not operate veterans court programs to participate in drug courts instead.

Congress must do everything in its power to protect our Nation's veterans and ensure that they get the very best treatment. This is exactly what this bill does.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 921, the Jamie Zapata and Victor Avila Federal Officers and Employees Protection Act.

In 2011, members of the Los Zetas drug cartel gunned down ICE Agents Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila in an attempted carjacking. Agent Zapata was killed.

The perpetrators of this terrible crime were members of the Los Zetas hit squad on a mission that day to shoot and steal vehicles for cartel operations.

The murder and attempted carjacking occurred in Mexico. So the perpetrators were extradited to the United States to face trial for the murder and attempted murder of the American agents.

In 2017, the cartel members were convicted under section 1114 of title 18 of the United States Code, which prohibits the killing of an officer of the United States. They were sentenced to life in prison.

On appeal, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because the crimes occurred on foreign soil, section 1114 did not apply.

In light of this ruling, Federal law enforcement officers and civil servants stationed overseas are made more vulnerable to attack. The decision created a circuit split and opened a loophole in Federal law reversing centuries of precedent that the law was intended to apply extraterritorially.

The bill simply codifies centuries of precedent and legal understanding by clarifying the extraterritorial application of three Federal statutes to protect our Federal law enforcement officers and other Federal officials. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in May.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1502, the COPS Counseling Act of 2021.

With recent attacks on law enforcement agencies from the left, including calls to defund the police, officers around the country have suffered from persistent and increasing physical and mental stress.

Police departments are experiencing dropping retention rates and officers are left with fewer colleagues to support them while also facing more crime. As a result the need for new and better performing peer support groups with State and local law enforcement agencies has risen.

This bill would help alleviate some of that strain from dealing with the ever-increasing amount of violent crime over the last year by supporting and encouraging the use of peer support groups. Some people feel like there is a stigma related to addressing mental health needs, making mental wellness difficult to address.

Peer support programs can help address this challenge in the law enforcement community. Officers who are in

need of help may be most comfortable reaching out to their fellow officers especially if their confidentiality is protected. This bill requires the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services, to develop a report of best practices for peer support programs. These best practices required under the COPS Counseling Act will help State and local law enforcement agencies establish new peer counseling programs and enhance existing ones.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler).

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1511, the Protecting America's First Responders Act of 2021. This bill is about taking care of our Federal, State, and local public safety officers who are working on the front lines every day to protect us. Our Nation's law enforcement officers need our support now more than ever.

Over the past year, we have seen violent crime rise in nearly every major urban area. During this spike in violence, we have seen city councils defund their police departments, taking vital resources away from the brave men and women who protect us day in and day out. On top of that, our law enforcement officers are dealing with all of the complications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the Fraternal Order of Police, over 700 public safety officers have tragically lost their lives due to COVID-19. That number will inevitably continue to rise.

The Department of Justice's Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program provides assistance to officers and their families in the event that they lose their lives or are catastrophically injured in the line of duty. The PSOB Program reviews over a thousand claims submitted every year.

The program provides a one-time, lump-sum payment of $370,000 for officers who lose their lives or are catastrophically injured in the line of duty. The payment amount is adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index. Each claimant's payment amount is determined by the date of the injury or death, but the claim may take years to adjudicate.

This bill corrects this inequity by requiring that payment amounts be determined by the date of adjudication for any claim that has been pending for over a year. This will help these law enforcement officers and their families account for increased cost of living and other expenses that are subject to inflation during these lengthy adjudication periods.

The PSOB Program also provides interim payments for death claims if the claimant is likely to receive an award under the program, but the interim payment amount has not increased since 1976. This bill will increase those interim payments for death claims from $3,000 to $6,000 and require annual adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index to ensure that Congress will not need to make further adjustments in the future.

The PSOB Program also provides educational benefits of $1,200 a month to children of public safety officers who have been killed or disabled in the line of duty. Here, too, many of these claims for education benefits are not adjudicated in a timely fashion, and many children do not receive these benefits. This bill will provide backpay to the children of fallen and disabled public safety officers who qualify for benefits but failed to receive benefits due to a delay in processing these claims.

Finally, this bill will update the PSOB Program's definition of disability to ensure that law enforcement officers who are permanently unable to secure meaningful, gainful employment following a catastrophic injury in the line of duty remain eligible for benefits.

This is a critical and necessary piece of legislation, and I am proud to support a bill that takes care of the men and women of our law enforcement community.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers and am prepared to close.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Korean War veterans and Vietnam War veterans from Oregon's Second Congressional District who are visiting their memorials on the National Mall through Honor Flight of Oregon. When I have the opportunity to meet these heroes, I am reminded of the enduring words of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who affirmed that ``The history of free men is never really written by chance--but by choice--their choice.''

The words he spoke then, Madam Speaker, still ring true today. Those who value liberty are indebted to these heroes, for each one made the choice to defend freedom through acts of extraordinary service and incredible sacrifice and bravery on behalf of our country. It is my privilege to include in the Record their names.

The veterans on this Honor Flight from Oregon are as follows: William Baker, Air Force; Wendell Bayse, Navy; Harold Busch, Coast Guard; Charles Cruikshank, Army; Richard Dluehosh, Marine Corps; Roy Drago, Army; David Driggers, Navy; Garey Fritz, Army; Billy Gentry, Army; Richard Harley, Navy; Harl Hawkins, Jr., Marine Corps; Edmund Larios, Army; William Nunn, Army; John Pavllicek, Army; JeJy Peter, Army; James Prevatt, Army; Terrel Roberson, Army; Douglas Roberts, Army; Richard Thommen, Army; Gusravo Tovar, Army; Gregory Turnbow, Army: Gary Wishart, Navy; and Franklin Yates, Army.

These heroes join over 240,000 veterans who have been honored through the Honor Flight Network of volunteers nationwide since 2005.

I would also like to recognize the volunteers and guardians traveling on this trip who have served our country: Donald Deland, Navy; Brian Driggers, Navy; Rodney Edwards, Army; James Hawkins, Army; Clinton McAuliffe, Navy; Dane Prevatt, USMC; Earl Schroeder, USAF; and Colben Keith Sime, USMC.;

Madam Speaker, in his 1796 farewell address, General George Washington said, ``You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels and joint efforts; of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.'' As a nation, we must never take for granted the liberties we enjoy today, recognizing that these freedoms have been hard-won by the honor, commitment, and sacrifice of our veterans. Each member in this chamber and citizen in these United States should be humbled by the courage of the brave veterans who voluntarily underwent `common dangers, sufferings, and successes' in order to preserve our country and way of life.

My colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their remarkable service and devotion to our great country.

Madam Speaker, this bill would operate to freeze in place, to substantially chill, changes to the election processes of some of the 90,126 State and local government units found in this United States.

Madam Speaker, I assure you, the election processes of many of these State and local units are not perfect, but this bill would chill necessary corrections and updating of such election processes. Why? Because the bill creates a private enforcement cause of action, with attorney fees to the prevailing party, and establishes a clear risk to these 90,126 government units of incurring tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorney fees if the government unit gets it wrong and violates the subjective standards, such as the undefined term ``diminishes'' found in section 4A(c)(2) in the bill.

Madam Speaker, after what we have been through in the last election, we should be working to encourage certainty and clarity in our election processes. This bill does not do that. It does the opposite.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is drought, and the problem is currently being suffered by some 70 million people across the Western United States, including many in my district.

Reservoirs, creeks, springs, and wells are going dry, leaving fish, people, wildlife, homes, and agriculture without water.

Republican Members have been working hard to bring attention to this issue. We organized a Republican water forum where we spoke with expert witnesses from across the West who are dealing with this issue every day. They are the ones from the communities directly affected.

This problem does not exist in a vacuum. Drought makes wildfires far more severe, and severe wildfires destroy watersheds, in turn making us even more

vulnerable to drought. This horrific cycle will only continue until we find a better way to manage our forests. I think Ranking Member Westerman's forest resilience bill takes a huge step in that direction.

My district right now is experiencing the third largest wildfire so far in the State's history. It has burned some 400,000 acres and is now only 56 percent contained.

Some of my colleagues here are facing equally dangerous, destructive wildfires in their own districts, all worsened by the drought.

The effects of this drought are devastating. Crops die in the fields, entire herds of cattle are being liquidated, trees and shrubs die from lack of water, home wells go dry, businesses leave, and communities are devastated. We need to do something.

Briefly, I want to talk about the drought in the Klamath, which is in my district. I spoke earlier this summer about the situation and how the Bureau of Reclamation announced that earlier this year for the first time in the Klamath Project's history, there would be no water allocation to its largest part.

This decision to allocate all of the water that the farmers had stored for their use instead to in-stream use is devastating to the people who live in those communities. Their livelihoods depend upon having adequate water.

But this is, in the Klamath, a regulatory drought because there is sufficient water in a lake that if shared would have at least offset some of this damage. This illustrates the challenge posed by the Endangered Species Act, which was the foundation for the decision by the Bureau of Reclamation to allocate all of the water to in-stream and in-lake purposes, with none of the water going to the farmers.

I have asked the Secretary of the Interior and other Department of the Interior officials repeatedly to allocate at least a small part of the 350,000 acre-feet of water to the project. Those requests have been denied.

This denial has not only harmed the farmers. It has also harmed waterfowl who reside in a refuge in the center of the project. Last year we had more water than we do this year, and even then waterfowl suffered devastating botulism outbreaks. This will happen again this year and, sadly, this is totally preventable if at least a small part of the water was allocated to the district.

The short-term solution would be a financial relief package that Representative LaMalfa and I are working on. I do hope that we will be successful in getting that passed. The long-term solution, though, is to engage in far more careful storage of water and utilizing other means of conservation and finally bringing balance to the Endangered Species Act.

I would like to thank Ranking Member Westerman for organizing this Special Order hour to bring attention to this incredibly important problem in the West. It is time for both parties to put politics aside and get to work on this issue.