Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in singing the praise of our staff. But let me just note--and, of course, I have had great staff as well, Rick Dykema and Kathleen Staunton, who have been with me the entire 30 years that I have been a Member of this body.

But staff, as well as the Members, we quite often take for granted what does really enable us to conduct ourselves in this way. It is very easy to overlook. The American people overlook it. We all overlook this. And, that is, we take for granted the safety and security that we operate in. No matter how good our staff is, no matter how great we are, if we were not safe, we could not be conducting this business of our democratic country.

Let us note that Officers Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson were two law enforcement officers who gave their lives while I have been here in order to secure the safety we need to do the public business. So as I leave this body, I would like to make sure they know--I am sure they are listening from above and maybe their families will hear--that there are Members who are grateful to the sacrifice that they made. They gave their lives to keep a terrorist out of this building that would have done damage or murdered Members.

So with that said, I have been here 30 years. I am overwhelmed with gratitude toward the voters who sent me here and to God that gave me the opportunity to live life that permitted the voters to elect me as their representative in Washington.

I spent 7\1/2\ years in the Reagan White House with President Reagan, and after that, from 1981 to 1988, I came directly into combat-- political combat of running for the House and was elected in 1988, and I have served here since 1989.

It has been one of the most wonderful, glorious times. It is the best life I could ever, ever have imagined. And I know a lot of people, they gripe about the hours and sometimes some of the friction that happens among debates over important issues, but I am so grateful to have this chance.

And, again, there are so many people who are serving their country who are not anywhere nearer to having the wondrous life that we have. My father was a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps. He joined up after Pearl Harbor to protect our country.

Again, a lot of people, when they see this happening, they don't quite understand. This is what was given to us. There is sacrifice behind us. There is sacrifice in the air of all these people who sacrificed over our country's history, and especially my father's generation, the great generation that gave us this freedom that is all around us that you can feel it.

Thank God that I had a personal chance to participate in this wondrous, wondrous gift that, yes, God, our Founding Fathers, and, yes, our parents, in the greatest generation, gave us, and the other people who now are overseas to this very day defending our right to conduct ourselves this way.

So what a wonderful life I have had in these 30 years. I have had a chance to participate and help shape America's space program, and I have helped bring in commercial space so that we have private investment to keep our space program operating at the high levels it should be, actually leading mankind into space.

I was able to also work with the Democrats--and don't let people think that there isn't cooperation here, because there is. Working on the space program I worked with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

And on the issue of cannabis, which I consider to be an important issue today, because people are finally beginning to realize that the idea of expending enormous resources and our time with our jails and our own security in terms of police, locally and nationally and at the State level, what a waste of those resources aimed at trying to prevent an adult from consuming a weed. And at least I have been able to work then--and also we now find that there are medical reasons that cannabis should be legal. And I have worked with Members on the other side of aisle to achieve a certain degree of progress in that area.

So with that said, let me just note that as people talk about the lack of civility that we have now, there has always been fighting in a free society. People have different ideas, and they are struggling, but whenever we get tough in this body, whenever things would get tense and people would be fighting on an issue and coming to grips with these differences that free people can have, I would always look up. I always say: ``The answer is looking up.''

And if you look up in this wonderful room that we do our business in here, what do you see? You see an American Eagle and you see the slogan of our country, ``e pluribus unum,'' which means all of us--we may be different, we may have different ideas, different races, different religions, different backgrounds, but we are one people and that freedom of the one people comes together here on this floor, and I have

been so proud to be a part of that great debate to direct the future of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues that on March 4, 2007 the first deployment of a Marine Special Operations Task Force to combat in Afghanistan was conducting a combat reconnaissance patrol in the village of Bati Kot, Afghanistan near the Afghan-Pakistan border when they were attacked by enemy forces who used a car bomb and a complex ambush consisting of groups of fighters on both sides of the road and a sniper element. The Marines courageously counter-attacked the enemy with accurate firepower and immediately reported the situation from the ambush site using satellite radio and data transmissions to their special operations command center as was factually proven through eye-witness testimony during legal proceedings.

The most significant element of this engagement was the fact that the Marine unit did not choose the battlefield. As so often has happened, the terrorist element who attacked the Marines intentionally chose to launch their ambush while in an area where many noncombatants would be put in grave danger. The terrorists where hiding behind innocent residents knowing many would be caught in the crossfire.

The Marines smartly departed the ambush site after five minutes and continued to receive enemy gunfire and sniper fire from multiple enemy positions. Twenty minutes following the attack the Marines returned to their patrol base and were informed that reports of Marines murdering Afghan civilians including women and children had already been announced in the international media. These reports of Marines committing civilian atrocities swiftly grew in the international media and a command investigation was ordered by the Commanding General of the Special Operations Command Central in Tampa, Florida. Only one day following the arrival of the command investigator who had heard testimony from only ten Marines who were on the patrol the entire Marine Special Operations Task Force consisting of 120 personnel were ordered out of Afghanistan and faced a criminal investigation led by Naval Criminal Investigation Services into accusations of negligent homicide.

The Marines returned home in disgrace, several were relieved of their duties prior to the investigation being completed and were subject to greater slander by the international media of a war crime that alleged killing 19 Afghan civilians and wounding 50 Afghan civilians without ever having any prima facie evidence of a bullet, a body or even a photograph of a murdered Afghan.

NCIS' investigation lasted over one year and utilized techniques that centered on strong arm tactics against two Marine witnesses of Latino ethnicity to include repeated coercion and false threats made against their families and careers if they did not comply with their unlawful requests for taking an ``ordered'' polygraphs and signing NCIS' prepared witness statements.

Seven of these Marines who were falsely accused of war crimes were continually vilified in the press, families and careers were ruined from countless statements in the press for over one year after the alleged massacre took place. Over four months following a 3.5 week courtroom trial the Marine Corps Central Command released a short statement that, ``the Marines `acted appropriately' according to the rules of engagement and tactics, techniques and procedures for a complex ambush.'' This statement enraged many Afghans and led to rioting in Afghanistan meanwhile the press continued to print libelous statements for eight more years accusing the Marines of having committed these crimes and not being punished. However, the Marines continued to serve their Corps and faithfully deployed to combat in Afghanistan and other locations overseas, with these repeated libelous statements being written and believed as facts in the media, books and many military senior commands.

The effects were devastating to the seven Marines health (including fighting cancer and diabetes), destroying marriages and the careers of these Marines who continued to faithfully serve.

It is time that the record be clearly be told that the Marines from the first Marine Special Operations Task Force were proven in court to have been attacked by enemy forces and the Marines fought with courage as they killed enemy forces, immediately and accurately reported the events to their command and were subsequently unethically interrogated by NCIS and in the media using methods that caused permanent destruction to their health, families and careers.

These reports of war crimes were unsubstantiated, and these Marines deserve to be recognized for their courage as they encountered the enemy who inflicted the first casualty on a U.S. Marine from the Marine Special Operations Command and these Marines all deserve their God given rights to pursue happiness and not suffer the professional embarrassment of these false accusations of war crimes.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise with a sense of awe and gratitude that God and the voters have permitted me to be a Member of this body, the House of Representatives, for the last 30 years. At least for me, my time here has permitted me the opportunity to earn a living by advocating policies and programs that I believed would improve the well-being of the American people and would be consistent with the ideals and principles of our country, the United States of America.

I came here after spending 7 years as a senior speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan as well as 2 years of that in the Reagan White House as a special assistant to the President. My experiences in the Reagan White House gave me valuable understandings of many issues of the day as well as contacts that, over the years, I put to good use. The longer I have been here in Washington, the more appreciative I am for the leadership and policies of President Ronald Reagan.

When he left office 30 years ago, our economy was strong; the Cold War was ending as the Soviet Union disintegrated; and Ronald Reagan handed over to our generation, a new generation of Americans, a country with an upward trajectory and with tremendous potential. He restored to America that sense of optimism that is so much a part of our character.

It was an honor to have served at his side in the White House, and, yes, I am

proud to have served with the men and women in this Congress from all over our country who represented both America's diversity and dedication to high values.

Yes, looking back, I am disappointed that our government while I have been here did not achieve all that was possible. But at the same time, I think both Republicans and Democrats in this House of Representatives can be proud of what has been accomplished both nationally, and, yes, what they have accomplished back home in trying to meet the needs of their people, trying to make sure that their own citizens were served, thus making America a better place not just from the top down here in Washington but from the bottom up as well. I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle care deeply about their own constituents and have spent so much time, when they could have been with their own families, helping the families who have elected them to come to Congress.

I cannot think of a life I would rather have lived, the highs and the lows; the idealism and the pragmatism; the courage and the weakness; the disappointments, and, yes, the joyous outcomes that I have seen here as part of this living institution in its 230 years of legislative service to the people of the United States.

Since our country's government was established back in 1789, fewer than 11,000 individuals have served in the United States House of Representatives.

Davy Crockett was one of them, memorialized as a fierce frontiersman who later died a heroic death battling for Texas independence at the Alamo. I found his courage under fire here as a Member of Congress to be much more inspiring than his accomplishments on the battlefield.

Yes, we should look at Andrew Jackson and Davy Crockett and what happened between those two. The fact is, Davy Crockett was elected to Congress as a supporter of Andrew Jackson when he ran for President. In fact, as a fierce Indian fighter, he was expected to be at Andrew Jackson's side. Jackson was a man who had won many military battles, and many of those military battles were fought and his victories were brought on by the fact that he had a large number of American Indians as part of his battle group, part of his Army.

He promised those Indians who had fought with him at the various battles, against other Indian tribes and against the British at the Battle of New Orleans, that they, too, would be part of our country. Davy Crockett was there when those promises were made.

Later, when Davy Crockett came here to this body, to this Congress, and Andrew Jackson betrayed those men and women--those Americans who happened to be American Indians--when he betrayed them, Davy Crockett would have nothing to do with it. Davy Crockett stood firm, and, yes, it was memorialized in the Walt Disney series. As we were young, we saw that. But that did not capture the essence of what happened at that time.

David Crockett, the man who was the Indian fighter, elected there by the people of his State to come here and support President Jackson, stood against that President, and he stood for integrity, honor, courage, and truthfulness. He got up before the Congress and opposed the Indian Exclusion Act that had been supported by Andrew Jackson.

For that, one would think, that tremendous show of courage, people would admire David Crockett and say: Look, what a great thing. He is standing up against a very powerful man with powerful interest groups even in his own district.

Yes, there were powerful interest groups in his own district who wanted to steal the land of the American Indians who lived there. David Crockett, thus, in his next election, was defeated.

Then David Crockett, of course, having been defeated in Congress, having his own people turned against him and not willing to stand up with him, went on to Texas where he then, through acts of physical courage, not just the ones that he exemplified on the floor of the House, showed the physical courage at the Battle of the Alamo.

As I say, we Americans should take at least as much pride, if not more pride, in that stand that he took in Congress against the Indian Exclusion Act, which was a betrayal of the American Indians.

When I got to Congress, I looked for the speech that David Crockett gave. I could not find it in the Congressional Record. I could not find it anywhere. Apparently, Andrew Jackson or some powerful person had actually pushed that aside so people wouldn't be able to find it.

I had my staff look for it and finally found a copy in the Library of Congress. I had my staff give that to me. It was a rendition of that speech that Davy Crockett gave, and I had that put into the Congressional Record.

During my time here in the people's House, as we like to call ourselves, I am proud that I, too, have stood against the tide when it was sweeping in the wrong direction. Yes, when you stand against the tide, when you stand against a direction in which people are making a profit, sometimes people whose egos are at stake on certain issues, you make enemies.

But I have always thought, and I believe even to this day, Members of Congress should not be afraid to make enemies, because if you are making an enemy, yes, you may have to suffer some personal consequences. But if you aren't making some people, even powerful people, mad at you, you are not doing your job. You are not going to change things.

It is much better for people to stand up and take that punishment, because what the American people want us to do is to stand up for principle and what we think is right. If we later lose, we have done what we thought was right.

I would love and hope that, someday, I do something that would make me have any type of recognition as someone who did take several stands while a Member of Congress that added great difficulty to my life. Most recently, I have felt that.

During the time that I was with Ronald Reagan and before, I had a position--as Davy Crockett did as an Indian fighter--I was in a position as one of the fierce warriors of the Cold War. I was never in the U.S. military, but I did do things in Vietnam during the Vietnam war and behind the Iron Curtain as well as other activities that I did to fight against communism.

During my time in the Reagan White House, I worked with the President on many of his bold statements and worked with people in developing what they call the Reagan Doctrine, which enabled our country to defeat the Soviet Union and bring it down without having a direct conflict between U.S. troops and Soviet troops. I thought that was a tremendous accomplishment. I am proud to have been part of the development of that doctrine, and I brought that knowledge with me here to Congress.

But after the fall of communism, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, I believed that it was time that we were working for peace. Ronald Reagan always talked about peace through strength. The goal was not strength; the goal was peace.

I felt that we needed to go and reach out to try to find ways of working with Russia and to try to meet more of our mutually beneficial goals, but also goals that would be achievable and helpful to the entire world. We needed to do that, and Russia was in turmoil.

I might just note that there were some people who didn't share my desire to try to bring Russia into the family of nations and wanted to continue to treat Russia as a pariah and also try to have American policy be unrelenting hostility toward anything that Russia would do. Communism was our enemy; the Russian people were not.

Ronald Reagan reached out to Gorbachev. Ronald Reagan did have an iron fist, and he helped the freedom fighters against those Soviet- backed regimes. But at the same time, he reached out to the Russian leadership and the Russian people.

Over these last few years there have been very powerful segments here in Washington, D.C., who want to reignite the Cold War. They want war with Russia. I have tried to stand firm and be reasonable, but it has made me very powerful enemies. But I am proud that I made that stand, and I think the American people want us to cooperate with Russia where it is mutually beneficial.

I have been over and over again labeled Putin's favorite Congressman. That is absolutely absurd. I will say right now I believe that everything I have ever done in this body has been based on my love of my country and thinking of what would be good for the people of the United States. In this case, working with Russia in order to defeat radical Islamic terrorists who threaten us was the right thing to do.

The same with maybe working with India, Japan, and Russia, and these other countries. But instead, we have had just, as I say, an unrelenting effort on the part of some powerful interests to keep America and Russia in a hostile situation. We should be able to talk to people and try to work out differences, rather than trying to establish something that would lead to armed conflict eventually. So I have taken a lot of hits on that and I consider that to be the right thing to do.

Over the years, of course, I am very grateful for other things that I have been able to play a role in and actually succeeded in. For example, when I first came here 30 years ago, we had a Democratic majority. But later, when we won a Republican majority, I was granted-- and I was in the Science, Space, and Technology Committee--I was granted the chairmanship of the Space Subcommittee in the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. That was the prime subcommittee in science. I oversaw America's space program for 8 years.

I am very proud and grateful that I had the opportunity in those 8 years to make a lasting difference in the way America's space program has been configured. Before then, it was always just government employees, bureaucrats, NASA, and military space ventures. There wasn't a commercial space industry.

I made sure, when I had a challenge of balancing the budget here, knowing that the way to bring more money was to encourage the private sector to invest. I worked on and I passed legislation designed to help promote commercial space activities here in the United States. I am very proud of what we have accomplished.

But now we have Blue Origin, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic. There are 10 or 20 different space programs that are at work today. And we have vast plans that are being made by private companies to develop space. For example, to develop observation of the Earth and monitoring satellites that will help us. Look at what we are doing with guidance systems now, our GPS systems, et cetera.

I am very, very honored and pleased and grateful that God gave me and this Congress gave me in those 8 years the right to be chairman of that committee and be part of this type of change for the better that now is reaping good benefits for our country and the world.

I also have been very active while here on science and technology issues. For example, the patent issue. Many people don't even look at patents. They yawn when you say it. But the fact is, Americans have had the benefit of the strongest patent system in the world. And thus our investors, from the very Constitution where the patent law was written into our Constitution, have had that benefit of our creative genius and of our people being protected in order that they can be nurtured. Thus, the number one development of new technology in the world has come from Americans.

I have for the last 20 years, at least--maybe 25 years now--been one to defeat and champion the cause of the individual inventor in America. American people aren't interested in something that complicated. It is hard for them to understand that multinational corporations, many of them headed by Americans, have been trying to undercut the patent system in our country.

I am also very proud that during my time here and being recognized as Ronald Reagan's special assistant when I left the White House, my conservative credentials gave me the authority and gave me the ability to talk to conservative people throughout the country--and, yes, throughout the House and the Senate--on the issue of cannabis.

The fact is, marijuana created an illusion of disruption and of decadence in the American peoples' minds, because in the late sixties the use of marijuana was so public and it was identified as something with hippies and people who didn't like American culture.

Well, the fact is, cannabis has tremendous service to give to the people of our country who are suffering from various maladies. Older people, senior people, now some of the greatest people, are utilizing cannabis--that is, marijuana--in order to cure some of the problems they face as seniors: the aches, the pains, the lack of an appetite, and things such as that.

We understand that there are children who are suffering, when before, no one was able to think that cannabis might be a cure for the seizures of young people; or, who would have ever suspected that this opioid epidemic, where some people claim the use of drugs and opiates started with cannabis? No.

What we are finding out now is cannabis is not a gateway door into the use of opiates. It is instead a way out. It is a way that cannabis can actually be used to break the addiction of opiates in our country.

These are things where there was never any research done. I am very proud that, with my conservative credentials, I can talk to a number of my Republican colleagues to join with almost all of my Democratic colleagues and vote to permit the States to decide whether or not cannabis would be legal or illegal in their State for the medical use of marijuana.

That has brought a great change over the last 6 years since my amendment--first, the Rohrabacher-Hinchey, then Rohrabacher-Farr--and now, over these 6 years, it is a $6 billion industry now. That is $6 billion not going to the drug cartels in Mexico. That is $6 billion of which can be spent helping people, rather than trying to put someone in jail for consuming a weed, using all the money for law enforcement, jails, judges' time, and police time, rather than trying to protect the American people. What a waste.

My colleagues joined with me in that. I think that has been a wonderful accomplishment that I am very, very proud of and very grateful that I had the opportunity to be here and express that in debate and to reach out to my fellow Congressmen here from both sides of the aisle and mobilize a majority that got that passed so that the Federal Government cannot supersede State law now, when it comes to medical marijuana.

Also, one of the things that I guess is something that is people don't know much at all, but during my time before Congress and during my time during the Reagan years, I was deeply involved with various insurgency groups that were trying to defeat the Soviet Union, bring down the Soviet Union.

Part of that is I was able to get to know the leadership of the mujahideen who were fighting Soviet troops in Afghanistan. In fact, I went to Afghanistan and I fought with troops and the mujahideen and fought against Soviet soldiers at the Battle of Jalalabad. Yes, I had that type of experience.

Later, when our Pakistani friends and our Saudi friends betrayed us and betrayed the people of Afghanistan by supporting the creation of the Taliban, a radical Islamic terrorist organization our Saudi friends and our Pakistani friends created, I continued to go to Afghanistan during that time period, while I was here in the Congress, and meet with the warlords that I had met with during the time that we were fighting the Soviet Union.

One of them, Commander Massoud, who I met on a number of occasions, was murdered 3 days before 9/11. I knew he had been tipped off by other contacts that I had in Afghanistan that there was an attack being planned on the United States. They said: You will know that it is going to happen when something major happens in Afghanistan that will change the political balance. It is a signal that the attack will go forward.

I went all over this city when I realized that Commander Massoud was murdered 3 days before 9/11, that was the signal to move forward on this attack on the United States. I tried to warn our administration. I tried to warn everyone in the city. No one would listen.

Then, I had a wonderful thing happen in my life. Actually, after 9/ 11, people did start to listen. Of course, they did. They remembered: Dana Rohrabacher was trying to warn us about this. And all of this is happening without public view. The public never saw any of this.

But I was able then to talk to various people in our government at high levels

of positions and outline for them how we should proceed. Our own military, our Defense Department wanted to send 100,000 American troops or more into a frontal attack--an attack from Pakistan in the northwest provinces--into Afghanistan.

I was horrified when I heard this. I knew that territory. It is the most anti-American territory on the planet. Our military would have been slaughtered or at least holed up in fortress cities like the Russians had been. It was a horrible thing.

I thank God that I had this opportunity, because I went to the powers that be and I told them: You can't do this. This is wrong. They said: What do we do?

I managed to get ahold of General Dostum and other ``warlords'' in Afghanistan to enlist them, and the President of the United States, when given the alternative of using the warlords with special forces teams and U.S. air power versus sending in hundreds of thousands of American troops, our President chose to use Afghans in what they called the Northern Alliance, which I helped create with a team of people-- Charlie Santos, Paul Behrends, and other friends who had been working with me in Afghanistan over the years--and helped us put that together and the President decided to go in that direction. I would recommend the book on the horse soldiers: ``12 Strong.'' There is a movie out. It is about that first special forces team and General Dostum.

I believe that I was able that day, by convincing the authorities to go in that direction, to save thousands and thousands of American soldiers' lives. How demoralizing would it have been if we had not succeeded in a counterattack after 9/11?

Finally, let me mention a couple of things in passing that are those things that I discussed that give me pride and that I remember; what really also is most heartwarming to someone who is a Member of Congress is what he or she has been able to do for our own constituents.

As I say, whether you are Republicans or Democrats, we know our job is to help our people. Nobody else is going to help our people, except us. We care about them. Jack Kemp used to say: They won't care what you say unless they know that you care about them. Unless you can show them you care, they don't care about what you say. I never met a Democratic or Republican that didn't love his constituents or try to help them.

During the time period that I have been a Member of Congress, we had a flood control project. I know that sounds not so great here. But the fact is, we had a flood control project in Orange County that basically saved maybe billions of dollars in flood insurance costs for homeowners in my area in Orange County. The flood threat was going where people's lives would have been at stake.

I worked on that and I made sure when I first got here and worked with other Members of Congress--Democrat Members of Congress, because it was a Democrat Congress--to help complete that project. That is the type of bipartisanship we are capable of.

We have a water reclamation project in Orange County. It is the most high-tech water system in the world. We had a big drought over these last few years, but Orange County was the one county that stood alone in not being hurt dramatically because we had a system we invested in. I brought people from all over the world to see that technology, and I was able to work with our locals to make that happen.

I was able, over my years, to help veterans who were being stood up, veterans who were not getting the service they needed. They felt helpless. They were, some of them, sick, psychologically wounded by the service that they had provided, yet we were not helping them.

My office has helped hundreds of these men and women who were in desperate need of someone to care for them. That is a memory now, a good memory, and I know my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, do that.

And we have changed the rules so that now the Veterans Administration has to be more caring. They have to make sure these people are being taken care of.

I am very proud, again, of the bipartisan approach on these issues of human caring for our own constituents, making America a better place from the bottom up instead of from the top down.

Let me just note that there are hundreds of people in my district who would have lost their homes about 10 years ago when we had an economic upheaval. People remember the Great Recession. Well, yes, things got really bad, and people were losing their homes. We established a program, and we helped over 500 people in Orange County, in my district, to save their homes, families that would have lost everything.

Thank God that I was permitted to be a Member of this body, because I know each and every one of us were doing things like that to help those in need.

I have gone to help as many seniors who are having trouble with bureaucracy, with Social Security; and I have also tried to do my best over the years to work with organizations, organizations that add to the benefit and that add to the strength, the moral strength as well as every other strength of our system, organizations, whether they are the Rotary Club or whether they are the Boy Scouts of America.

I have pinned on hundreds, if not thousands, of Eagle Scout pins for all of the Scouts for these last 30 years that I have been a Member of Congress representing Orange County.

So we must be loyal, basically, to these local people, these people who have elected us. That is our job. Our job is to watch out for them, for their interests.

I have one last note, and that is this: When we look at the immigration issue, I would hope that we do so with respect for each other and understanding that people have good hearts on both sides. But I know that, in my heart, my main job right now--and it has been for every Member of this House--should be to watch out for what is in the best interests of the American people.

Those people who would like to come here illegally, I am sorry. We already provide for a million people to come here legally.

We have to make sure the policies we set for immigration are what are in the interests of the people of the United States, and the same with our foreign policy.

I want to say that I am grateful that God has given me the opportunity and the voters have given me the opportunity these last 30 years to try to serve in the interests of my people, of the people of our country, and of those ideals our Founding Fathers and Mothers put in place when they risked all in the American Revolution back in 1776.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1768) to reauthorize and amend the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S. 1768, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1768, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2018.

The bill before us is the same text of H.R. 6650, the bill I introduced in the House earlier this year to reauthorize a Federal program that improves America's earthquake preparedness, and which the Senate agreed to accept as the final agreement. With a little indulgence, I might then say that this would be the Rohrabacher- Feinstein Earthquake bill. That is the way it goes.

For 40 years the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, NEHRP, has supported efforts to assess and monitor earthquake hazards and risks across our Nation.

Four Federal agencies coordinate their earthquake activities under this program: the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Science Foundation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. These agencies assess earthquake hazards, deliver notifications of seismic events, develop measures to reduce earthquake hazards, and conduct research to help reduce overall American vulnerability to earthquakes.

The Congress last reviewed and reauthorized the program in 2004, and that law expired in 2009. Although Congress continues to appropriate funds for this important work, the legislation before us makes long overdue changes to modernize the program and make it more effective.

The bill removes outdated language related to earthquake prediction and instead emphasizes the continued development of an earthquake early-warning system. The bill also reduces various administrative burdens for Federal agencies, burdens that are disruptive to the essential mission of the program. Our approach also improves data sharing between these agencies.

Finally, the legislation provides a 5-year authorization for appropriations at the current funding level.

In my home State of California, we understand the omnipresent threat of another massive earthquake. According to the USGS, California has a 99 percent chance of being devastated by a magnitude 6.7 earthquake, or an even larger one, in the next 30 years. That is the same power as the 1994 Northridge earthquake which killed 57 people, injured more than 8,700 others, and caused damages of up to $50 billion, making it one of the costliest disasters in American history.

California is not alone. Close to 75 million people in 39 States face significant risk from earthquakes. By being prepared for future disasters we reduce our potential loss of life and property for those who would suffer those consequences.

I want to thank Senators Dianne Feinstein and Lisa Murkowski who introduced this bill in the Senate, as well as Representative Pramila Jayapal who joined me in introducing the bill in this House. I want to thank the leadership of the House Natural Resources Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for working with us to bring this bill to the floor. Although the Science, Space, and Technology Committee has primary jurisdiction and we were given superb leadership by our current chairman, these committees and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology do share jurisdiction over the agencies in this program.

Mr. Speaker, let me again express my deep appreciation for the leadership on the other side of the aisle, but especially now that we are going to be losing our chairman, for the great job that he has done as chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

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

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology,

Washington, DC, October 29, 2018.

Hon. Rob Bishop,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing concerning S. 1768, the

``National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

Reauthorization Act of 2018,'' which was referred to the

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and additionally

to the Committee on Natural Resources, on September 28, 2018.

Although your Committee has a valid jurisdictional interest

in certain provisions of S. 1768, I ask that you discharge

the Natural Resources Committee from further consideration of

this measure to permit the Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of

this bill. I ask that you do so with the understanding that

your Committee does not waive any future jurisdictional claim

over the subject matter contained in the bill that fall

within its Rule X jurisdiction.

Finally, I will support an appropriate appointment of

outside conferees from your Committee in the event of a

House-Senate conference on this legislation and will include

our exchange of letters on S. 1768 into the Congressional

Record during floor consideration of this bill.

Thank you again for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Lamar Smith,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), who is the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

We Californians know what suffering happens when you are unprepared for a wildfire. We have learned that lesson very tragically just recently. There is no need for us to suffer by being unprepared for the next earthquake. That is what this is all about.

I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and especially thank the chairman for the fact that we have worked together in a way that is really going to have a positive impact on so many people by preventing them from having to suffer what we have seen recently in the wildfires in California.

Mr. Speaker, although there is often disagreement in the people's House, we should never overlook those many areas of concurrence.

There are those who believe that human activity, for example, is causing a cataclysmic jump in the temperature of the planet. Others, however, disagree with this analysis and, thus, oppose policies that restrict human activities and drive up the cost of living a decent life. This issue has been a tumultuous division.

However, there are so many other areas in which we can and will focus on, not just in terms of what our committee does, but on which we have a wide acceptance on where precautionary measures are justified and needed. Research in understanding how buildings, bridges, and other infrastructure react to earthquakes is an example of something that I expect that we all agree on. We can see that even here in this debate.

I will not be here next year, but I wanted to mention just a few other science-related areas where bipartisan action could be effective and where the costs of prevention are minimal as compared to the potential damage. These are things that we have worked on but have not come to a conclusion. Both the chairman and I won't be here next year, but I thought I would mention them.

For example, I hope there can be real progress made in the next few years when it comes to the protection of our planet from astroids and comets, which have caused massive damage--even extinction--over the last 250 million years. Although we are searching in space near and far for these objects now, we have not organized or put in place the means to divert them or eliminate a threatening object when it is observed heading in our direction.

Another common ground issue should be protecting our space assets from orbital debris, which is basically a man-made minefield in space. We rely on our space-based assets for defense, science, farming, a huge portion of our commerce, and even for navigating your car to a local market. There are many other plans for new satellite constellations and new expectations for increased numbers of people visiting space.

Thus, we will be expanding, hopefully, observation and monitoring of what is going on with the planet for the benefit of the people of the planet. But none of these uses of space will ever be put to work for bettering our lives unless we deal with the debris issue. If we are not protecting our space-based assets, we are risking our future, our way of life, our security, and our prosperity.

I am sorry we did not get this done. It was a bipartisan effort. We just didn't get that, among all the things we were working on this Congress. But I hope the next Congress will succeed and will focus on those two issues where we can cooperate in a very bipartisan way.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the moving forward of S. 1768, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2018.

May we always be prepared to deal with natural disasters, thus protecting our people from needless tragedies. We will always live with the potential of a severe earthquake, but we can minimize the loss and suffering. That is what we are doing here with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the bill being signed into law by the President by the end of the year, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again regarding the hearing held by the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice on September 28, 2018, on the issue of sober living homes. At that hearing, I had the privilege of testifying in support of my bill, H.R. 5724, to restore local oversight over sober living homes. As part of my testimony, I submitted to the Subcommittee letters from many of my constituents about problems with sober living homes caused by current federal law preventing appropriate local oversight. For the benefit of my colleagues and the American people, I include in the Record the eighth group of these constituent letters below:

These are examples of what our neighborhood has had to

endure since the Sober living home has opened in our

neighborhood. As some of the new tenants moved in they

introduced themselves as a bunch of college students. These

tenants moved out within two weeks. We believe this was a

ploy by [REDACTED] get the start in the neighborhood without

attracting attention. Since they moved in, our neighborhood

has had to put up with cars parked illegally up and down the

street. When confronted, the tenants of the house use

profanity and extremely rude language and gestures.

The neighborhood is on constant alert due to activity on

our street and in and out of the house all hours of the night

and day. Specifically, one-night last week a tenant walked

out with a backpack around 1:00 a.m. and met with a stranger

who was dropped off in our neighborhood earlier. The two were

observed cooking heroin. The police were called and showed

up. The two ran off along with a third person waiting in the

sober living house back yard. When the police arrived this

person and the one doing the drugs went home to home trying

to get into houses. All of this was verified and collaborated

via the many cameras in the neighborhood. One vehicle kept at

the house, which is usually parked on the street, appears to

be a drop point. People drive up and place something in the

trunk and later a tenant will pick up whatever has been

dropped off and bring it into the house.

Our entire neighborhood has turned into a place where we do

not feel safe. Our children must call before they come home

so we can escort them into the house. The house has two

aggressive pit bulls who have gotten out and pinned a

neighbor inside her car unable to leave. When animal control

arrived, the dog was put in the house and one tenant said to

the officer it's not my dog and left.

These are examples of what our neighborhood has been

dealing with. Some other concerns are the property values as

several long time homeowners are already talking about

selling to get away from the element that has moved in. This

home in question is less than 1000 feet from a school. The

school has been notified and parents that drop off their kids

for school will be notified about this house. This can

negatively affect the attendance of the school.

The local police say there is nothing they can do, the city

council tell us there is nothing we can do, this is our

neighborhood and should not be driven out because of greed,

or loopholes in the laws and insurance scams. We would hope

Congress would give the local city's authority to regulate

and set rules for these kind of houses, and the ability to

shut them down for illegal activity.

Less Tait,

Huntington Beach, California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again regarding the hearing held by the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice on September 28, 2018 on the issue of sober living homes. At that hearing, I had the privilege of testifying in support of my bill, H.R. 5724, to restore local oversight over sober living homes. As part of my testimony, I submitted to the Subcommittee letters from many of my constituents about problems with sober living homes caused by current federal law preventing appropriate local oversight. For the benefit of my colleagues and the American people, I include in the Record the seventh group of these constituent letters below:

I am a proud Southern California native, educated in our

fine public elementary schools, and hold degrees from the

University of Southern California. After living in and

working in most of the nation's major metropolitan cities, I

was fortunate to find my slice of paradise in Huntington

Beach 30 years ago. Living in the downtown area has been a

wonderful place full of life, activity, and best of all a

close-knit neighborhood family. In downtown, our homes, due

to the very close proximity to the Pacific Ocean, are

extremely close--it is akin to living in a sliver of land

separated giant condominium complex. My house, the oldest in

my neighborhood is unique for many reasons, one reason that

has only recently become an unbearable issue is that all of

our rooms are directly within 6-8' from the rooms of the SLH

next door. Therefore, my teenage daughter's bedroom is within

6 to 8' of the SLH kitchen, eating area and side outdoor

patio. In essence, we hear everything--conversations, fights,

fits, paramedics speaking to the hospital when there is an

overdose, slamming doors at all hours of the day and night,

sexual positions and experiences of the ``clients,'' each and

every way known to smoke, snort, inject, drink, any and all

substances and the last time used (usually within that day).

I could sum up the last 25 years of living in my neighborhood

in one sentence--a wonderful place to live. Unfortunately,

with the disaster that has been forced upon us by greed and

inaction, I can no longer sum it up as wonderful, but quite

the opposite. I will try to keep this as succinct as

possible, but the only real way to keep it succinct is for

all of you to come and live in my house for a day--it's as

far away from wonderful now as I can reasonably imagine.

So, I write this as a fed-up homeowner, parent who can no

longer feel safe for my daughter, active community member who

has no answers because our city leadership is hog-tied by

bureaucracy, and as an elected school board trustee for the

Huntington Beach City School District who sees the impact to

our district. So, I see this issue from many different

perspectives.

In summary:

Homeowner/resident/parent/human:

My house has been relegated nearly worthless. I tried to

sell and only received very low offers because no person in

their right mind wants to live in my situation. No one needs

to disclose next door is a SLH, there are throngs of men and

women loitering both front, back, across the street, all over

the street smoking, using foul language, and usually at least

monthly there is an overdose, so we often wake up to sirens

and the conversations regarding the entire incident. This has

become so bad that my daughter now is living primarily out of

the house because she is afraid to walk in the front door,

won't be home alone, cannot sleep or study from the smoke and

noise, she's been cat-called walking home from school, had

unimaginable things said to her right in front of me and when

I have confronted these people, I was told to ``be careful

bitch, we'll burn your house down with you in it.'' So now my

daughter is too afraid to sleep here at night because she has

nightmares of being burned in the house alive. I've paid

hundreds of dollars in vet bills because they toss their

cigarette butts into my side yard, and if I can't get to them

fast enough my dog has eaten them and become toxic to her

(dog is only 9 lbs). My trash bins are filled and spilled

over with the most disgusting trash--we now have rats. Our

sidewalks are littered with hundreds of cigarettes and trash

and when I have asked these people or their visitors to

please put the trash in a trash can not the street, my car

was keyed. I've had both the front and back of my car

destroyed from these folks driving out of state cars DUI and

crashing into my parked car. When

I called the owner of the house to complain (note: none of

the owners of these houses live anywhere in Huntington

Beach), he told me that he would be working on buying the

house on the other side of me to make sure to ``squeeze me

out'' and ``shut me up,'' Apparently, it appears he's going

to win. We have these houses in multitudes in my

neighborhood, all of them have multiple issues and now seeing

an OD HBPD/HBFD call is nearly a daily occurrence. I've had

so much angst and anxiety over just living here and what are

we going to have to deal with and live through today it's

taken a toll on my health, and certainly my daughter's. Why

do they have more rights than my child does?

As a school board member, we are always working to ensure

our children and community safe, clean schools, and an

excellent education. We also look forward at our demographics

and enrollment to properly prepare. We have planned for some

declining enrollment, but families in our district schools,

primarily in our largest elementary and middle school, which

serve the downtown neighborhood are losing enrollment at an

alarming rate due to families moving completely out of

Huntington Beach because of this SLH issue. There are at

least 4 SLH homes that are directly in the walking path to

both the elementary and middle school that hundreds of small

children walk through that now on a daily basis are forced to

walk through groups of SLH ``clients'' smoking, spitting,

urinating, shooting drugs on the sidewalk, using unimaginable

language, cat-calling young girls, loud foul language music.

I've had parents crying and children scared to go to school--

not of school but getting to and from school. So, our planned

attrition in those schools has more than doubled our research

and it is primarily because these families no longer feel

safe and that our city has any interest in their well-being.

So, in most cases, they take a large loss on their home value

and leave. The vandalism and theft of our schools has

increased as well.

I want to make it very clear that I am an advocate that

anyone that needs help should be able to get the help they

need. However, these SLH homes are not helping these people

who desperately need it, they are not-so-well-hidden drug

dens that are destroying our neighborhoods. They need

quality, medically-supervised help and counseling--not a

frat-house for drugs with absolutely no oversight, no

counseling, no supervision. The current SLH next door to me

is now both male and female and has at least 12 but up to 15

people. If I am being forced to pay through taxes and

increased insurance premiums to cover this care, then please

get them the help they desperately need--and what has been

going on here is certainly not help--it's a greed grab to the

detriment of both the neighborhoods and the people who are

seeking help. There is a reason all other states have curbed

this process--for as impossible as it is to do business in

California, it is inconceivable that this industry remains

without any regulations, still allow un-checked body

brokering, curbing, cross-state human commerce.

I will end with this--I am tired of hearing that we are

just complaining because of NIMBY. This is NOT a NIMBY issue.

This madness and crisis is NOT in my backyard. It is in my

backyard, my front yard, my side yard, inside my house. So, I

would like to ask that if our elected officials from

Washington to the California Legislature continue to refuse

to do anything and continue to deny allowing our elected City

officials to govern Huntington Beach as local governing

bodies were intended for, then please, I beg of you . . . buy

my house because no one else will but another SLH. If I can

be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

I think I speak for all of us--we want help for those that

need help, but appropriate help in the appropriate

locations--because what is going on is a lose-lose for

everyone BUT the unscrupulous operators and landlords. But

the biggest losers are our neighborhood children.

Bridget Kaub,

Huntington Beach, California.

Mr. Speaker, last month, nearly 300 Chinese Christian pastors publicly signed ``A Declaration for the Sake of the Christian Faith.'' In so doing, they have risked severe persecution, imprisonment, and even death in China's vast network of horrifying re- education and forced-labor camps. These courageous champions for Jesus Christ, the Christian faith, and religious freedom have shocked and shamed China's communist regime before the world.

I regret to inform the people of the United States that a terrifying new round of attacks on Christians has been taking place in China. And earlier this year, President Xi Jinping introduced a five-year plan to ``Sinicize'' all that country 's religions by blending them with ``Chinese characteristics'' such as loyalty to the Communist Party.

Over the past several months, the government has taken violent steps to fulfill this plan by closing and razing hundreds of Christian churches and seizing Bibles. Under the new crackdown, children and Communist Party members are banned from churches in some areas, and Party officials have forced Christians to replace posters of Jesus with portraits of President Xi Jinping. Reports have also confirmed that numerous Chinese Christians were sentenced to up to 13 years in jail for involvement in the so-called ``cult'' known as Christianity.

President Trump is standing for freedom and doing what is right rather than kowtowing to Chinese President Xi Jinping. He is demanding that China end its appalling persecution of Christians and other religious minorities--and I am proud to be shoulder-to-shoulder with him in the fight to stop this infamous case of communist terror.

The American people are outraged by President Xi's depraved behavior toward Christians. It must stop now. We should make that part of any future discussions. China is ruled by a brutal dictatorship. In fact, the so-called People's Republic of China doesn't have any democratic institutions. We must tell President Xi that the people and government of the United States will not give China trade benefits until the anti- Christian attacks stop.

The people of communist China want freedom. There are millions of Christians in that country-but its atheist dictatorship rules over people with an iron fist. We the people of the United States condemn the Chinese Communist Party for their bloody attacks on their own citizens. President Xi must end this inhuman and cruel persecution of Christians and allow religious freedom before the world will accept China as a civilized country.

Chinese state media falsely claim that its citizens enjoy freedom of religion. In fact, their constitution states: ``No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion.''

Ever since Xi Jinping became president of China, in 2012, he has consolidated and centralized his power and cultivated a cult of personality like Mao. ``Xi Jinping Thought'' has even been added to China's constitution--a status reserved only for Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping previously. This means that any challenge to President Xi's policies--including his assault on Christians--may now be regarded as a threat to Communist Party rule.

More than 70 million Catholics and Protestants live in China, which means that China will have the world's largest Christian population in a few decades. I call on all of America's Christian leaders--and religious leaders of all faiths--to join with President Trump and all Americans in condemning China's hateful acts and praying that Chinese Christians will one day be able to live in China in freedom, in justice, and in religious liberty for all.

I include in the Record a Joint Statement by Pastors; A Declaration for the Sake of the Christian Faith:

On the morning of Saturday, September 1, 2018, one of

China's leading house churches, Early Rain Covenant Church in

Chengdu, posted a joint statement on Facebook declaring its

stance on the new religious regulations. So far, the document

has been signed by 116 church leaders* across the country and

the call for signatures remains open. This is an interesting

and important document for the ongoing development of the

house church's response to the new regulations, particularly

as the church continues to reflect on and articulate its

theology of the gospel and the kingdom, rather than resorting

to language of liberty and rights. Along with Early Rain's 95

Theses, documents like this are important for the history of

the church in China and should encourage Christians across

the globe.

We are a group of Chinese Christians, chosen by the Most

High God to be His humble servants, serving as pastors for

Christian churches throughout various towns and cities. We

believe and are obligated to teach the world that the one

true and living Triune God is the Creator of the universe, of

the world, and of all people. All men should worship God and

not any man or thing. We believe and are obligated to teach

the world that all men, from national leaders to beggars and

prisoners, have sinned. They will

die once and then be judged in righteousness. Apart from the

grace and redemption of God, all men would eternally perish.

We believe and are obligated to teach the world that the

crucified and risen Jesus is the only Head of the global

church, the sole Savior of all mankind, and the everlasting

Ruler and supreme Judge of the universe. To all who repent

and believe in Him, God will give eternal life and an eternal

Kingdom.

In September 2017, the State Council issued the new

``Regulations on the Administration of Religious Affairs''

and began implementing these regulations in February 2018.

Ever since then, Christian churches across China have

suffered varying degrees of persecution, contempt, and

misunderstanding from government departments during public

worship and religious practices, including various

administrative measures that attempt to alter and distort the

Christian faith. Some of these violent actions are

unprecedented since the end of the Cultural Revolution. These

include demolishing crosses on church buildings, violently

removing expressions of faith like crosses and couplets

hanging on Christians' homes, forcing and threatening

churches to join religious organizations controlled by the

government, forcing churches to hang the national flag or to

sing secular songs praising the State and political parties,

banning the children of Christians from entering churches and

receiving religious education, and depriving churches and

believers of the right to gather freely.

We believe that these unjust actions are an abuse of

government power and have led to serious conflicts between

political and religious parties in Chinese society. These

actions infringe on the human freedoms of religion and

conscience and violate the universal rule of law. We are

obligated to announce bad news to the authorities and to all

of society: God hates all attempts to suppress human souls

and all acts of persecution against the Christian church, and

he will condemn and judge them with righteous judgment.

But we are even more obligated to proclaim good news to the

authorities and to all of society: Jesus, the only begotten

Son of God, the Savior and King of mankind, in order to save

us sinners was killed, was buried, and rose from the dead by

the power of God, destroying the power of sin and death. In

His love and compassion God has prepared forgiveness and

salvation for all who are willing to believe in Jesus,

including Chinese people.

At any time, anyone can repent from any sin, turn to

Christ, fear God, obtain eternal life, and bring great

blessing from God upon his family and country.

For the sake of faith and conscience, for the spiritual

benefits of the authorities in China and of society as a

whole, and ultimately for the glory, holiness, and

righteousness of God, we make the following declaration to

the Chinese government and to all of society:

1. Christian churches in China believe unconditionally that

the Bible is the Word and Revelation of God. It is the source

and final authority of all righteousness, ethics, and

salvation. If the will of any political party, the laws of

any government, or the commands of any man directly violate

the teachings of the Bible, harming men's souls and opposing

the gospel proclaimed by the church, we are obligated to obey

God rather than men, and we are obligated to teach all

members of the church to do the same.

2. Christian churches in China are eager and determined to

walk the path of the cross of Christ and are more than

willing to imitate the older generation of saints who

suffered and were martyred for their faith. We are willing

and obligated under any circumstance to face all government

persecution, misunderstanding, and violence with peace,

patience, and compassion. For when churches refuse to obey

evil laws, it does not stem from any political agenda; it

does not stem from resentment or hostility; it stems only

from the demands of the gospel and from a love for Chinese

society.

3. Christian churches in China are willing to obey

authorities in China whom God has appointed and to respect

the government's authority to govern society and human

conduct. We believe and are obligated to teach all believers

in the church that the authority of the government is from

God and that as long as the government does not overstep the

boundaries of secular power laid out in the Bible and does

not interfere with or violate anything related to faith or

the soul, Christians are obligated to respect the

authorities, to pray fervently for their benefit, and to pray

earnestly for Chinese society. For the sake of the gospel, we

are willing to suffer all external losses brought about by

unfair law enforcement. Out of a love for our fellow

citizens, we are willing to give up all of our earthly

rights.

4. For this reason, we believe and are obligated to teach

all believers that all true churches in China that belong to

Christ must hold to the principle of the separation of church

and state and must proclaim Christ as the sole head of the

church. We declare that in matters of external conduct,

churches are willing to accept lawful oversight by civil

administration or other government departments as other

social organizations do. But under no circumstances will we

lead our churches to join a religious organization controlled

by the government, to register with the religious

administration department, or to accept any kind of

affiliation. We also will not accept any ``ban'' or ``fine''

imposed on our churches due to our faith. For the sake of the

gospel, we are prepared to bear all losses--even the loss of

our freedom and our lives.

Signatories of the Joint Statement:

Pastor Wang Yi (Chengdu Early Rain Covenant Church), Pastor

Yang Hua (Guiyang Living Stone Church), Pastor Jin Mingri

(Beijing Zion Church), Pastor Zhang Xiaofeng, Elder Sun Yi,

Elder You Guanghui (Beijing Shouwang Church Governance

Committee), Pastor Huang Xiaoning (Guangzhou Bible Reformer

Church), Pastor Dou Shaowen (Zhengzhou Conerstone Church),

Elder Zhang Chuanlei (Guiyang Renai Reformed Church), Elder

Wen Hongbin (Chengdu Xishuipang Reformed Church), Minister

Yang Xibo (Xiamen Xunsiding Church), Minister Jiang Jianping

(Foshan Olive Tree Church), Elder Xue Honggen (Chengdu Yudu

Zhuen Reformed Church), Elder Char Changping (Chengdu

Shengmingzhiquan Church), Minister Shi Shangbiao (Zhangzhou

Feilizhijia Church), Pastor Li Tao (Kunming Endian Church),

Pastor Shen Xianfeng (Wuhan Zhongfu Chenxing Church).

Elder Tang Bohu (Shanghai Caihong Reformed Church), Cui

Quan (Shanghai Wangbang Xuanjiao Church), Pastor Su Yaorong

(Taizhou Tianfu Reformed Church), Minister Wang Teng (Taizhou

Mingdao Reformed Church), Pastor Wang Changyi (Tiazhou

Tiantai Fuyin Church), Pastor Ji Jianyang (Tiazhou Xianju

Mengen Church), Pastor Guo Chuanyu ChangchunLinhezhifu

Reformed Church), Pastor Li Lianmin (Shenzhen Shajing Bible

Reformed Church), Pastor Zhuang Zhiyong (Shenzhen Huaqiang

Bible Reformed Church), Pastor Chen Jingtang (Shengzhen

Guifangyuan Bible Reformed Church), Pastor Huang Lei (Wuhan

Shangxiatang Church), Pastor Zhang Yong (Changchun

Yangguangzhijia Reformed Church), Pastor Gao Lijun (Wenzhou

Wangkun Church), Minister Cai Jingliang (Foshan Fangzhou

Church), Minister Xu Jianwei (Hebei Tangshan Church).

Minister Jiangtian (Chengdu Gospel Church), Minister An

Yankui (Taiyuan Xuncheng Reformed Church), Elder Haoming

(Deyang Qiuyu Qingcaodi Church), Minister Li Zihu (Chengdu

Ziuyu Enyue Church), Minister Cheng Zhangchun (Chengdu Qiuyu

Jianan Church), Minister Cao Qingen (Chengdu Linxishu

Reformed Church), Minister Wang Tianmin (Shamen New Creation

Church), Minister Wan Changchun, Elder Wang Zhaorong, (Bangbu

Huoshi Reformed Church), Pastor Li Jiale (Beijing Daohang

Zhijia Church), Pastor Huang Yizi (Wenzhou Pingyang Fengwo

Church), Pastor Lin Yage (Guiyang Mengen Church), Pastor Wu

Yiqi (Changchun Fuyin Zhiguang Reformed Church), Minister Gu

Hongfei (Beijing Aixuan Church), Pastor Xu Zhibing (Jiangsu

Guanyun Xiansi Duizhong New Church), Pastor Peng Qiang

(Chengdu Enfu Reformed Gospel Church).

Elder Zheng Zhaobei, Ministers Ren Lichuan and Jie Shoutuan

(Chengdu Xishuipang Reformed Gospel Church), Elder Jiang

Guocheng, Elder Peng Yuan (Renshou Enhui Reformed Gospel

Church), Elder Liu Maolin (Linyi Enyue Reformed Church),

Elder Yan Xiaoxin (Rizhao Enzhao Reformed Church), Elder

Huowei (Linyi Enquan Reformed Church), Elder Chen Shun (Linyi

Enyuan Reformed Mission), Elder Li Rongtai (Linyi Enlin

Reformed Church), Minister Yang Binchuan (Zaozhuang Zhuentang

Church), Pastor Liu Hongwei (Beijing Ganlanshan Church),

Minister Lin Hesheng (Chengdu Fanglin Church), Liu Zhiyong

(Xi'an Jitaicun Cornerstone Church), Minister Luo Ruisheng

(Guangzhou Sui Guizheng Fuyin Tuanqi Huangshen Jiangdian),

Minister Ye Xinde (Fujian Zhangpu Yilin Zhijia Reformed

Church), Minister Meng Yongguang (Gansu Lanzhou Chenxing

Church), Minister Wang Zisheng (Qingdao Jimiya Church),

Minister Huang Wenyou (Hong Kong Chinese Christian Church).

Minister Chen Huizhen (Zhangzhou Longhai Shima Xincheng

Church), Pastor Liu Yang (Xi'an Xinwang Ai Church), Minister

Sun Chao (Yunnan Qujing Feila Tiefei Church), Pastor Xu Mei

(Xi'an Enquan Church), Pastor Dong Zhi (Beijing Hemujia

Church), Brother Liang Yongen (Dalian Shien Zhen Church),

Pastor Ju Dawei (Xi'an Halleluiah Church), Pastor Zhao Yanwei

(Zhengzhou Zhongai Church), Pastor Ren Jinbiao (Hebei Botou

Shihong Grace Church), Pastor Huang Lei (Hunan Yueyang Shipan

Shisheng Jingdu Church), Pastor Sun Hong (Jilin Shengyue

Zhendao Church), Minister Zhu Lehai (Zhangjiajie Hope

Christian Church), Pastor Zhang Qianjin (Beijing,

missionary), Pastor Gao Quanfu (Xi'an Zhiguang Church),

Pastor Guo Zhi (Dongguan Reformed Gospel Church).

Minister Chen Shengda (Wenzhou Boteli Church), Minister

Wang Lanqing (Shandong Linyi Tiancheng Shengyue Church),

Pastor Guo Yijun (Beijing Endao Reformed Baptist Church),

Minister Xu Fengchuan (Anhui Fuyang Nanzhao Xingqi Faguang

Church), Minister Huang Wenguang (Shenzhen Jehovah Yile

Church), Minister Li Jianxuan (Shenzhen Thanksgiving Church),

Minister Yin Xuguang (Beijing Shijing Shanshuguang Church),

Pastor Zhou Yunfeng (Xianyang Xin Wang Ai Yangwang Church),

Minister Yang Fuli (Shijiazhuang Hongdao Church), Teacher

Cheng Chaohua (Wenzhou Shenzhou Preaching Team), Minister Qin

Shengjie (Henan Balizhuang Church), Teacher Wang Weixin

(Wenzhou Yufutang Church). Pastor Weng Xiangkun (Wenzhou

Shenzhou Preaching Team), Pastor Huang hanxin (Wenzhou

Shenzhou Preaching Team), Minister Wang Xiao (Henan

Dongguocun Church).

Pastor Zhu Jiahao (Wenzhou Shenzhou Preaching Team),

Minister Xinyi Chuandao (Datong Lirenzao Church), Minister

Zhao Lihui (Datong Lirenzao Church), Pastor Lin Jinlian

(Wenzhou Shenzhou Preaching Team), Pastor Yan Xiaojie

(Wenzhou Shangjiang Church), Minister Chen Jiafu (Chen Dawei)

(Fuzhou Boteli Reformed Church), Pastor Du Youchang (Jingmen

Ganlanshan Church), Pastor Wang Yongcheng, Elder Feng

Guangxiong (Shen Ai Shi Ren Fengshou Church), Pastor Ruan

Dawei (Zhanjiang Gengxin Church), Minister Guan Xinyuan

(Jiangsu Liyang Family Church), Minister Zhao Ruohan (Henan

Xihuo Church), Minister Sun Chanli (Hubei Shiyan Rongguang

Biliya Church), Elder Li Youhong (Chengdu Shengming Zhi Quan

Church), Elder Yan Xixia, Elder Su Bingsen, Elder Li

Yingqiang, Elder Tan Defu, Minister Zhang Xudong, (Chengdu

Early Rain Covenant Church).

Mr. Speaker, I rise again regarding the hearing held by the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice on September 28, 2018 on the issue of sober living homes. At that hearing, I had the privilege of testifying in support of my bill, H.R. 5724, to restore local oversight over sober living homes. As part of my testimony, I submitted to the Subcommittee letters from many of my constituents about problems with sober living homes caused by current federal law preventing appropriate local oversight. For the benefit of my colleagues and the American people, I include in the Record the sixth group of these constituent letters below:

Good Afternoon, I am a Registered Nurse. I am also in

recovery 30 years. I have also worked with the homeless and

indigent population. I have family members who suffer from

addiction. I believe the sober living houses should be

licensed so that they can care for addicts in the appropriate

manner. I believe the houses should be regulated in that way:

however, as far as zoning, I would have to review your whole

bill to make sure it isn't a NIMBY type of plan as is with

the homeless population in our county. I will be more focused

on the housing issues of our ill population and the homeless

crisis in the State of California as being a disservice to

the people who are here. Mental health and homelessness

should be the priority in this state. Thank you.

Catherine Orlando,

Huntington Beach, California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again regarding the hearing held by the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice on September 28, 2018 on the issue of sober living homes. At that hearing, I had the privilege of testifying in support of my bill, H.R. 5724, to restore local oversight over sober living homes. As part of my testimony, I submitted to the Subcommittee letters from many of my constituents about problems with sober living homes caused by current federal law preventing appropriate local oversight. For the benefit of my colleagues and the American people, I include in the Record the fifth group of these constituent letters:

Thank you for bringing our issues with Sober Living Homes

(SLH) in our neighborhoods to congress. Here is the nightmare

my husband, two young sons and I have endured over the past

1.5 years.

We live in downtown Huntington Beach that had been known

for our lovely beaches and quaint surf culture community, now

we are called Rehab Riviera. My nightmare began in April

2017, when the owner of the house across the street from me

opted turn down $3800 in rent per month to dozens of families

wanting to rent it and instead he sold out the neighborhood

for $9000 a month in rent to a business, [REDACTED].

[REDACTED] was started by two addicts, [NAME] and [NAME] 1

year and 4 months out of a recovery. They have no special

training, they are not licensed by the State of California,

DHHS does not regulate their business and they especially do

not have hand-picked doctors, per their website, taking care

of the young lives at [ADDRESS]. On February 24, 2018, a

handsome, sweet young man, [NAME], overdosed, in the care of

[REDACTED], at [ADDRESS]. His body laid in his bed for over 8

hours before it was discovered. Then his fluid-soaked

mattress laid on the sidewalk between the home and the wall

separating the houses for 2 weeks before it was finally

disposed of properly. On March 13, 2018 [NAME] co-owner of

[REDACTED] overdosed at his home in Fountain Valley.

According to the reports, [NAME] was apparently facing

pressure on several fronts. Last year, a text exchange

between [NAME]'s business partner, [NAME], and an addict,

went public in that forum, laying bare an increasingly-common

scam: Addicts demanding to be paid to get surgical implants

of opioid-blocking drugs. The idea is that the addicts know

rehab operators and doctors can bill insurance companies

thousands of dollars per procedure.

I shared the above so you have an idea of the type of so-

called Sober Living Home I am dealing with. A business opened

by two addicts just to make money while they scam the system

and allow young men to die and overdose (survive) in their

care. After [NAME] overdose at the unlicensed home I was sure

that someone on a state or federal level would have shut them

down but nothing happened. The house manager, known as [NAME]

(no idea what his real name is) has allowed 2 more young men

to overdose under his care but luckily both survived. When we

asked [NAME] about them he stated they were kicked out of the

house and if you have spent any time in Southern California

lately, that just means there are now 2 more homeless addicts

on the streets. All the clients at [REDACTED] have been flown

here from other parts of the country and a few of them have

told me that it was a one-way ticket and if they want to go

home they have to do it with their own funds. They also tell

me they get money whenever they bring in another client into

the house. . . .

In addition to the above the neighbors and I have endured

the following: drug deals going down on our street. The

clients getting blow jobs while sitting in their cars parked

in front of our homes. Constant foul language coming from the

clients and their ``friends'' who come to visit. Young men

wearing their pants down to their knees, ghetto music (music

that is loud and contains profanity) blaring from their cars

and out of the house. At times there are 14 cars on our block

from the 7 clients and their 7 girlfriends so we cannot park

in front of our homes. I have two young boys and I am

constantly bringing in groceries or lugging out sports bags,

so having to walk a block away to get to and from my car.

Trash in the street and in the alley. Hypodermic needles have

been found, one of them in the neighbor's backyard. The

neighbors to the south of [REDACTED] are elderly and they

can't have their grandkids come over and play outside anymore

in fear of a hypodermic needle impaling itself into their

little bodies when it comes flying over the wall between the

homes.

In addition, the clients toss their cigarette butts over

the fence into the same neighbor's back yard. The same

neighbors can no longer leave their windows open to get fresh

air since they are constantly bombarded with cigarette smoke.

Countless fighting going on in the house that has resulted

in countless police visits. Intimidation from the clients.

There have been many occasions when I am outside in front of

my home and one of the clients will stand across the street,

drawing on his cigarette, with his pants down to his knees,

staring me down and glaring at my every move. My kids use to

skateboard in front of our house, or toss the football, but

now they don't want to be out there. We felt compelled to put

up cameras, keep our doors shut and our window curtains

drawn.

Increase in petty thefts. If we mistakenly leave our cars

unlocked the content is stolen during the night. I watched

two addicts (not from [REDACTED]) walking down the alley a

few months ago tugging on every door handle they passed. Then

they attempted to break into a shed on a neighbor's property

while I had run home to get my phone and call the police.

When we (the neighbors) have complained to [NAME] he tells

us to stop talking to his clients, they are grown men and

there is nothing he can do about the issues. His big solution

is to kick them out after they overdose, if they are lucky

enough to survive. So, I don't understand how [REDACTED] can

run a scam business in my neighborhood. I live a residential

zoned neighborhood not in a business zone. How can they stay

in operations when the state knows they are unlicensed, their

website was criminally misleading, and they are allowing

young men to OD and die in their ``care''?

I grew up in poverty, crawled my way out of it by going to

college on Pell grants (thank you government for giving me a

hand up, not a hand out), worked very hard to be able to buy

my mother a home and then myself one in 1995. I have lived

here for 23 years and before April 2017 it has been a quiet,

peaceful neighborhood with thoughtful and kind neighbors. Now

the SLH has greatly reduced the quality of life my family and

I had once enjoyed in our home. We are no longer comfortable

in our home, nor on our street. On August 13, 2018 we found

out that a recently purchased home (at [ADDRESS]) 3 doors

down from [ADDRESS] is also going to be a sober living home.

We have two side-by-side in the [REDACTED] block of

California street. Two more in the [REDACTED] block of

Huntington street (one street over) and countless more

throughout the neighborhood. We understand that a recovery

center is building their headquarters in downtown HB.

Seriously? Do you know how expensive real estate is in

Southern California, and these guys can afford to build a

high-rise headquarters 3 blocks from the ocean and a stone

throw away from two blocks of bars. This is not about helping

these addicts find recovery, this is about money, lots of

money! They want to bring them here to this environment, so

they stayed hooked on the drugs and they can continue to scam

the America tax payers!

Catherine Young,

Huntington Beach, California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again regarding the hearing held by the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice on September 28, 2018 on the issue of sober living homes. At that hearing, I had the privilege of testifying in support of my bill, H.R. 5724, to restore local oversight over sober living homes. As part of my testimony, I submitted to the Subcommittee letters from many of my constituents about problems with sober living homes caused by current federal law preventing appropriate local oversight. For the benefit of my colleagues and the American people, I include in the Record the fourth group of these constituent letters below:

A sober living home was across the street from me and my

family for one year. Three more were around the block from me

and those residents did not have parking. Our street was

filled with parked cars going directly into these sober

living homes. In addition, our streets were constantly

littered with trash, needles & cigarette buds. Since friends

of SLHs are not allowed to go within a certain distance to

the SLH property, young male adults would sit under my

basketball hoop smoking cigarettes in front of my then 12 and

10-year-old kids, waiting for the occupants to come outside.

The police were called on at least 3 occasions with problems

with the house across from me, and numerous occasions with

the homes around the block. I have witnessed 3 clients of

SLHs being taken away on stretchers in ambulances, with

police involvement. Young adults who relapse or are kicked

out of SLHs run amok through our residential streets breaking

into cars and houses, buying and selling drugs in our

neighborhoods filled with children. The amount of SLHs in

Costa Mesa are a major problem, just ask our CMPD and

businesses throughout our city. Our CM City Council wants to

reduce the amount of SLHs in residential neighborhoods based

on complaints from residents and businesses. Every city

should have a say in this and be able to vote on local

ordinances. Thank you in advance for considering this bill.

Keith Frainie,

Costa Mesa, California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again regarding the hearing held by the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice on September 28, 2018 on the issue of sober living homes. At that hearing, I had the privilege of testifying at that hearing in support of my bill, H.R. 5724, to restore local oversight over sober living homes. As part of my testimony, I submitted to the Subcommittee letters from many of my constituents about problems with sober living homes caused by current federal law preventing appropriate local oversight. For the benefit of my colleagues and the American people. I include in the Record the third group of these constituent letters:

As an ER nurse and a mom, I taught my children the dangers

of drugs and thought I would never have issues. At 17, my

high functioning autistic child was addicted to marijuana. I

sent him to wilderness camp, rehab centers and nothing

worked. At 18, I made a decision to put him into a sober

living home thinking he would learn life skills and to be

clean. Instead, he learned that if he would fail sober living

and go to a rehab center he was eligible for a grant of $3000

and he could keep $1000 but the guy who was setting it up

would keep the rest. His job is to recruit people to fail at

sober living to obtain grants. Luckily for us, my child had

the fear of never being able to live at home. I have seen at

least 100 patients from SLH test positive for substances even

hiding small shampoo bottles inside body cavities with other

people's urine to use for testing. Recruit to CA for more

money in benefits is what they are told. Then they are stuck

here. I see patients that are here from Maryland, Texas,

Nebraska, and Florida. They were brought here for rehab, went

into sober living home and now are homeless, addicts, with no

money to get home.

Monte Kay Yohr,

Huntington Beach, California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again regarding the hearing held by the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice on September 28, 2018 on the issue of sober living homes. At that hearing, I had the privilege of testifying at that hearing in support of my bill, H.R. 5724, to restore local oversight over sober living homes. As part of my testimony, I submitted to the Subcommittee letters from many of my constituents about problems with sober living homes caused by current federal law preventing appropriate local oversight. For the benefit of my colleagues and the American people, I include in the Record the second group of these constituent letters:

In mid-February the home next door was sold to a LLC. The

home was converted to a sober living home. I do not know how

many men live at the facility but notice that new men are

coming and going all day. There are different cars parked

weekly. I hope none of these men have criminal backgrounds.

Have cut down going outside the home. Stopped the evening

walk. Have an ADT security system and installed motion lights

all around the home.

Initially they smoked cigarettes in the backyard and we

lost all use of our backyard. On constant complaining to

[REDACTED] they moved the smoking to the other side of the

home. It did not help much as now they had begun to smoke e-

cigarettes and vaping also. The smell in our home is

terrible. We use Hepa filter air purifiers in the home. Keep

half the home windows closed. Our home has become more of a

prison. My husband and I have chronic multiple health issues.

The smoke and e cigarette pollutants cause me to have a

constant cough, irritated nose, burning eyes and sometimes

headaches. I wear a N99 pollution mask all day in the home. I

daily leave the home for a few hours to take the mask off. I

also try to spend a night or two outside the home. When the

symptoms get further aggravated I get checked by my

Physician. I last visited him on August 31, 2018. It affects

me more than my husband.

These homes are built for single family use and not for

group smoking and vaping. Our family room and sober living

home family room is 10 feet apart. My husband and I are

covered under the ADA, we are covered but not the facility

and medical personnel we use. The addict should be covered

under the ADA but why are the owners and medical personnel

covered also.

A few years back every residential neighborhood in

Huntington Beach had a park and school. Today every

residential neighborhood has a few sober living home/detox

facilities. Schools are closing, and many parks are unsafe

for children.

Joti Ghuman,

Huntington Beach, California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues about the hearing held by the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice on September 28, 2018 on the issue of sober living homes. I had the privilege of testifying at that hearing in support of my bill, H.R. 5724, to restore local oversight over sober living homes. As part of that testimony, I submitted to the Subcommittee letters from many of my constituents about problems with sober living homes caused by current federal law preventing appropriate local oversight. For the benefit of my colleagues and the American people, I include in the Record the first group of these constituent letters below:

Generally speaking, Mr. Rohrabacher, you're not someone I

feel represents me as a constituent. However, this is one

topic I agree with you on, and I never thought I'd say that.

I've seen the sober living home industry firsthand. They

exploit the desperation of addicts and their families, offer

no real help, and when the addict relapses, they are kicked

to the curb the same day and don't get prorated their rent

money. If they paid for a month and get kicked out 3 days

later, they lose all that money. It's actually more

profitable for sober livings to have high failure rates

because when the next person moves in, they effectively get

paid twice for the bed; the forfeited rent and the new

person's. The sober living home doesn't concern itself with

whether or not the people they evict have somewhere to go.

It's not surprising that many end up on the streets. Many

sober living homes are poorly maintained, have bug

infestations, are overcrowded, and residents regularly

experience theft and violence. If the purpose of a sober

living is to give someone a fresh start and chance at

redemption, which it should be, then the sober living home

industry has failed miserably, and that failure has proven

lucrative for those who profit from human suffering. More

accountability is needed, addicts are people like everyone

else, and deserve better.

Stephanie Ashley Larcome,

Westminster, California.

Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking the thousands of firefighters who, each year, put their lives at risk to battle wildfires like those that have plagued California and other western States. We owe it to them, as well as to the American people, to use every measure available to fight fires in ways that reduce the risk to those firefighters and the risk of losing lives and property among our population.

Just in the last year, and that is in 2018, wildfires in California burned 1,117,000 acres. Nationally, there was 6.5 million acres burned. In California, we had six fatalities. Nationally, there were 16 fatalities. California property losses were 2,356 houses--those are people's homes--and 1,239 nonresidential buildings.

On that note, today, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues and the American people to what I consider to be an inexcusable roadblock that is stopping the implementation of new, innovative, and tested effective firefighting technology.

In 2008, I helped secure funding for research and testing of the technology that ultimately became Precision Containerized Aerial Delivery System, or PCADS.

It was designed specifically for military aircraft, including the C- 17s and the C-130s and others as well. It has been tested over the years and proven to deliver massive amounts of water or fire retardant onto fires using GPS and other expertise. It is safer, more accurate, and much more effective than traditional aerial firefighting.

Yet a decade later, this technology has not been put to use despite the Air National Guard's report determining that the PCADs are operationally effective and appropriate for the use of C-130 firefighting aircraft or military aircraft that can be made for firefighting. This has been deemed operational, yet for the last 8 months, while we have lost all of these homes and all of these lives, hundreds of these aircraft, C-130s and C-17s, have sat on the tarmac.

This aircraft was designed for military use, but without modification, can save the lives and homes of American citizens throughout this country who are victimized by wildfires and other types of fires. The primary responsibility of our government is to protect the lives of our people with the best available tools, and it is certainly not doing so.

I include in the Record, Mr. Speaker, letters that I have written to the Director of our Air National Guard; to Secretary Mattis, the Secretary of Defense; and to Heather Wilson, the Secretary of the Air Force.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

August 30, 2018.

Lt. Gen. L. Scott Rice,

Director, Air National Guard,

Washington, DC.

Dear General Rice: I draw your attention to our military's

bureaucratic inertia that has led to a needless loss of life

and a tremendous loss of property. I am referring to the vast

damage caused in the Western United States, specifically

California, by out-of-control wildfires which have plagued

the region for the last few months. This loss of life and

property could have been dramatically curtailed had our

military acted upon an option that was, and is, readily

available.

Our inventory of C-130 and C-17 aircraft, with inexpensive

and slight interior modifications, could be used as a major

firefighting asset that could make a major difference.

Instead, these potential incredible firefighting assets sat

as California burned. Using these aircraft as valuable

firefighting assets would not involve any alteration of the

aircraft. This option however has been available and ignored.

I call your attention to the Precision Container Aerial

Delivery System (PCADS). I helped win Congressional approval

in the 2008 appropriations bill wherein $2.3 million was

provided for the research and testing of this system. It is

ten years later, and I am frustrated that it has not been

used to protect our citizens, our homes, our businesses, and

our wildlands.

The Air National Guard determined that PCADS is

operationally effective and is appropriate for C-130

firefighting. The final report on PCADS that found it to be a

reliable option was released in January 2018, yet seven

months later there has been no action taken to deploy the

system. During those seven months, we have suffered 109 large

fires which have burned 1.9 million acres, caused 16 fire

fatalities, and destroyed 2,356 houses. During this time, our

C-130's and C-17's equipped with this system could have had a

major impact on these fires. This is utterly unacceptable

when we have a proven technology that responds faster and

delivers massive quantities of water and fire retardant with

GPS directed drops in contrast to the status quo.

Furthermore, military transport aircraft can be rapidly and

easily reloaded with water or fire retardant as compared to

any other system. When the American people discover how

bureaucratic intransigence has caused such preventable

wildfire damage they will be justifiably outraged.

Today, I am demanding that actions be taken upon receipt of

this letter to facilitate the use of this simple and

inexpensive technology which will easily turn our inventory

of C-130's and C-17's into firefighting water and fire-

retardant bombers.

I hope you will take this letter seriously enough in order

to prevent even more damage in the state of California and

elsewhere.

Yours sincerely,

Dana Rohrabacher (CA 48),

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would get some support from these leaders who have been appointed by President Trump to protect the American people in any way they can.

Having these airplanes sit on the tarmac in California and elsewhere throughout this country when they could drop fire retardant and massive amounts of fire retardant water saving homes--little cul de sacs that would catch on fire and be destroyed, one flight over those cul de sacs could have saved them.

Thousands of people have lost their lives needlessly because of bureaucratic intransigence in our military, so we are calling on the Air National Guard, the Air Force, and, of course, our Secretary of Defense to unblock this impediment to protecting the lives of our people with U.S. military equipment that can do the job.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6227, the National Quantum Initiative Act. This act will move us toward a new millennium of computing.

Computers used to be big, really large, and the ways to make them more powerful was thought to be by making them bigger and bigger. Enormous mainframes filled entire office floors.

Well, after some very significant discoveries and development in the technological arena, we advanced this technology, making computers smaller, lighter, and more capable so we could send, for example, astronauts to the Moon. That led to more and more improvements, and now computers are in cars, are in our coffee machines and everything else that we do. They have gotten so small that most of us can carry them around and, perhaps, right now, are carrying them around in our pocket.

At this point now, we stand on the cusp of another giant leap forward for mankind, the quantum leap. By harnessing the natural properties of atomic and subatomic particles, we can develop the capabilities in the next decade that are far more capable than the systems that we marvel about today.

This act will coordinate our Federal activity, reduce waste and redundancy, and ensure that our efforts are strategic. This will keep us in advance, and way in advance, of our adversaries around the globe and ensure our security and our prosperity.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this act and supporting a better future for America and the world.