Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I guess we need to remind the Biden administration that there is a gigantic problem in the Middle East, most of it caused by Iran, the major sponsor of terror in the world, in Yemen, threatening our Saudi friends and, of course, all around Israel.

What is the remedy? A few weeks ago, it was to unfreeze $6 billion worth of Iranian assets in order to help them fund whatever activity, which is probably going to be terror.

What is the Biden administration considering now? Another $10 billion in unfrozen assets to allow them to continue this battle. You have to ask the question: Whose side are they on?

It makes absolutely no sense to give them more materiel, more assets, more ability for them to make war against our ally at a time when we are contemplating sending significant resources, as we should, to our ally, Israel. Yet, we can't get out of our tracks around here enough to do so.

Mr. Speaker, they need to think much harder about what they do with Iran and allowing them to be a sponsor of terror.

Mr. Speaker, when Israel came back into existence in 1948, what was the first thing they were greeted by?

It was an attack. It was an attack by their Arab neighbors.

Less than 20 years later, war in 1967. Israel had to defend herself again. Six years later, in 1973, yet again, Israel had to defend herself.

What is the name of Israel's army?

It is the Israel Defense Force. Defense.

What is the Iron Dome system?

It is a defense system.

Arrow missiles are a defense system.

So what is this all about when we are seeing so much anti-Semitism and we are seeing so many pro-Palestinian protests around the country and on our college campuses coupled with anti-Semitism?

What is the core that they are defending when they are standing up for this?

They are defending the pro-Hamas movement across the world which includes their covenant. The Hamas Covenant of 1988 states in article 7: ``The

day of judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then the Jews will hide among the rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: `O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.' ''

That is what they are defending.

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 5-year anniversary since the town of Paradise and surrounding areas were tragically burned. Eighty-six lives were lost in a town that was devastated; 90 percent gone.

You can see how graphic it is. People trying to escape in their automobiles on a narrow path up and down, out of the city.

Five years later, we have much to be optimistic about. Indeed, we see people building. With every reopened business, with every new house permit, with every community event, the optimism, the resiliency of the people of Paradise and the surrounding areas after the Camp fire are indeed an inspiration.

We have much to do to still help them. We have to pass legislation so they are not taxed for the damages that were caused to them, which I hope to get to this House floor. We need to help them still with some infrastructure and getting rid of the dead trees and such that are in the area. Indeed, they are bouncing back, and we are very proud of them.

God bless them as they continue to bounce back from that horrible day 5 years ago that will be forever remembered as we remember the loss of the loved ones and the damage it had.

Mr. Speaker, Congress is considering a transportation appropriations bill right now as we speak. It is critical that we don't give another dime to California's failed high-speed rail project that has sought money year after year after year from the Federal level.

Indeed, this document does not provide any new money for the high- speed rail project, but they are certainly seeking it. There are reportedly proposals for $3 billion requested by Governor Newsom and even reportedly asks of a possible $28 billion, which is what they really seek.

Let's go back just a little bit to learn the history of this project. In 2008, a proposition was passed on California's ballot with the idea to build a high-

speed rail system from San Francisco to L.A. The voters were told the cost would be $33 billion. Okay. There would have to be a high-speed rail that would go from the two cities at approximately 220 miles an hour and get the job done in approximately 3 hours or less. It has fallen far short of those goals.

They only have to have one high-speed train a day go in order to be eligible to be called a high-speed train. Otherwise, it is going to be a commuter line stopping in every little burg along the way. As it is turning out, from San Francisco to San Jose, it looks they are going to use local electric rail. Passengers would need to jump on a train in San Jose and then take it down to an undetermined point in southern California and perhaps jump on another train there.

We were talking about this last night in the debate, and I mentioned that you could take a Southwest Airlines plane and already be on the beach and have half a sunburn before you could get off the high-speed rail at that point.

What is the cost these days? That is the interesting part. In 2008, $33 billion is what they were sold. A year later, they adjusted the price up to $42 billion. Not long after that, when I was still in the State legislature, they actually admitted the price then would be $97 billion. Today's estimates show it to be $128 billion.

How much construction is finished on it? The voters were told in 2008 that it would be ready to go by 2020. Well, it is 2023, and not a single mile of track has been laid. They have some bridges and aqueducts already built around Fresno and such, but it is nowhere near being completed.

They are trying to do it in segments, so they are doing the Central Valley segment because, as they said at the time--this is pretty funny--they can build it in the Central Valley, there are fewer people there, so there is less resistance to having it built. They are going to do a segment from Merced to Bakersfield, where it ends up in an orchard somewhere as the terminus. At this point, we are finding they need $28 billion just to complete that segment, not the entire thing.

It has been a boondoggle from the beginning, with lies basically from the rail authority about what is going to happen with the timeline, the environmental work, and the number of jobs.

Here is another good one: They were promising there would be a million jobs for California. Well, 3 years into the project, they finally admitted it would be a million job years. Currently, they claim 5,000 people are working on the rail, and so at that rate for a million job years at 5,000 people, that would take 200 years to complete the system.

Well, the people who voted for it would probably like to see it done in their lifetime, which may not even happen. I think at this point, why don't we just cut our losses and move toward something that is useful not just for Californians but for all Americans.

Indeed, we want to do infrastructure around here. Why don't we do true infrastructure? We talk about highways. We talk about a lot of things. I am focused a lot on California's water situation. We have several projects to add to its water supply so it can continue to grow crops and people can thrive in our State, not just environmental water that gets shifted more and more towards fish water and running it out the delta, which doesn't actually help that situation or do anything environmentally positive anyway.

Instead of continuing to come to Washington, D.C., for more money to do something that is only covering this little portion of California, rather than San Francisco all the way to L.A. as originally planned, I propose instead that we shift the money into other projects that can help all Americans.

They don't even have the route planned out for the high-speed rail project. They don't know how they are going to get the last leap from Bakersfield into southern California. Are they going to build a tunnel through there with all that seismic activity? Are they going to go around it? Are they going to go over it? They don't have the whole plan this many years into the project, and they still want more money from Washington, D.C., from all Federal taxpayers.

If they shift the money into other infrastructure that can help all Americans, these crops that are grown in California, look at these numbers, basically 100 percent of walnuts and tomatoes grown commercially are grown in California. Many of these other crops, 90- plus percent are grown in California. Having a stable food supply is what benefits Americans, so dollars invested into our water system in California would go much further than wasting money on high-cost rail.

Madam Speaker, as we approach Veterans Day this coming weekend, we will remember that on the eleventh hour of the 11th day of the 11th month it was originally the end of World War I. It was known as Armistice Day, and in 1919 was the first Armistice Day until the Treaty of Versailles finally was done after several iterations of armistice was done back then.

Finally, in 1945, World War II veteran Raymond Weeks had the idea to expand it to all veterans. Raymond Weeks was later known as the father of what we now know as Veterans Day. In 1954 it was fully renamed Veterans Day.

To properly put the focus on the service and thanking of all our living veterans, this Saturday on November 11, I urge all Americans to pause and participate in honoring our living veterans at local events you may find in your area, Madam Speaker.

Let them know. It is not just a Friday off for Federal employees and the banks or no mail on Saturday, but a grateful Nation, instead, thanks them for preserving our freedom and that we should also be participants in our citizenship for our country.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, one of the components in this legislation has to do with the California high-speed rail line which was originally bonded for $9.9 billion in 2008. The high-speed rail would run from San Francisco to Los Angeles, and the projected total cost was deemed to be around $33 billion that the voters of California were sold when this was placed on the ballot. They would fund $9.9 billion of it. The rest would come from the private sector, seeing that it would be such a great investment and they would make a lot of money at that. The completion date would be 2020.

As I look at the calendar, we are already 3 years behind the 2020 date. As well, they have been looking for more money because they have fallen way short. The silence has been deafening from the private investors who have not come in on that because they know it is a money loser.

So what do we have?

Instead, California keeps coming begging to the Federal Government for more and more funds. They were able to scoop up about $3 billion soon after the Obama stimulus act.

Do you remember that one, Mr. Chair, back in 2009, look for the shovel-ready projects?

So they were able to scoop that up. They took that money because the other States who initially took that money gave it back because they weren't going to make high-speed rail work in their States for anywhere near the right price.

Here we are, at least 3 years after the initial date, and projections now are somewhere around 2035. They are just now chipping away at the Central Valley portion that would run from about Merced to Bakersfield and end in an almond orchard out there somewhere.

They are running out of funding, so they keep coming back to the Federal Government for more. They got $3 billion of ARRA funding back then, and they have since passed a carbon tax in California, where they auction off carbon credit rights in order to prop this up even more.

They are coming to us once again. They are $28 billion short of just fulfilling the Central Valley portion, not the whole $33 billion that voters were sold many years ago. It is going to end up being about $128 billion at current projections.

Mr. Chair, we have to stop throwing money down this rathole. Initially, they tried to tell us it would be a million jobs, back when I was in the State legislature. They finally admitted after 3 years that they meant a million job-years. I guess that means 5,000 workers working for 20 years or something like that, or 200 years. Some crazy number would mean a million job-years.

By the time you would actually take this rail, which is going to be electrified from San Francisco to San Jose, you would have to switch trains. You may well have to switch trains around here somewhere, too. You could take Southwest from San Francisco to L.A., be on the beach, and already have a sunburn before you could actually get off the high- speed rail where you are going. Plus, this is without being subsidized by the taxpayers for the ultraexpensive tickets these are going to be because of the massive overrun in costs.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague, Chairman Cole, for including this language in the bill that would block $3 billion of new spending on this from Federal taxpayers.

Mr. Chair, instead, why don't we invest infrastructure money to build the water storage that would grow these crops that all Americans would utilize and enjoy, which they already do since 90 percent are grown in California?

Let's invest in good things instead of this dumb high-speed rail project, which is a rathole, a boondoggle, that will not pay off.

Mr. Speaker, in only 3 years, President Biden's failed foreign policies have caused chaos around the globe.

In the Middle East, Biden failed to enforce congressionally enacted sanctions while opening up new lines of cash for Iran to fund terror. Now, Israel is under attack from Iran-backed terrorist proxies.

In Europe, Biden lifted sanctions on Putin's Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a move that he was warned was a calamitous foreign policy disaster, while simultaneously undermining American energy production, weakening our influence, and empowering malign producers of energy like Russia.

In Afghanistan, Biden's chaotic troop withdrawal left Americans dead, the Afghan Government to collapse, and stranded tens of thousands of Afghan allies.

In Asia, Biden continues to ignore a growing number of aggressive provocations from the Chinese Communist Party. He gave the CCP a pass on their COVID obstruction, let their spy balloon gather intelligence from sensitive military sites, promoted the use of the CCP's spyware app called TikTok, and was standing idly by as China reportedly set up a spy base in Cuba.

In North America, cartels are exploiting Biden's open borders agenda to poison tens of thousands of Americans with deadly fentanyl, while experts warn of the ever-growing terror threat as 1.6 million got-aways have escaped into the country on Biden's watch.

Mr. Speaker, his foreign policy agenda has been a failure on every front, and the entire world is less safe from it.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 8 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, November 7, 2023, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to point out that, once again, our water situation in California is extremely important to the whole country for our food supply.

Like these products you see here, many, many crops that are grown in California supply 90 to 99 percent of what Americans will consume; otherwise, they would be imported.

Why is that important? Because if our water supply in California isn't allowed to go to agriculture, instead more and more environmental water, more and more water just allowed to flow down the streams without being captured in water storage, we don't get these crops, we don't have an economy, and the land turns into something much less productive.

What we need is to continue to focus on saving water in California and allowing it to flow to agriculture, more water storage projects, and updating the 1960s-1970s manuals that guide how government saves water.

Yes, we had an amazing amount of water last year, but still two of our large reservoirs only reached 50 percent and 80 percent full, even with all that. Water management is extremely important when we manage it for people.

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible the amount of anti- Semitism that is rising up in this country and around the world, at a time when we preach tolerance, equity, and so many other things related to that, that we would have this wave of anti-Semitism coming out against Jewish people that is done brazenly in the light of day, on our college campuses, our media, and even across the street a couple weeks ago when they blocked off Independence Avenue, ostensibly for rights for others.

Here we are. We have an alliance with the country of Israel, which is extremely important for us. Look at the partnerships we have with the United States and Israel in developing technology, for saving water in agriculture, medical technology, and, yes, important technology for defense systems, our Patriot missiles and their Iron Dome when we work together.

It is imperative that we continue our alliance with Israel, and this package of $14 billion, instead of going to the IRS, goes to help the country of Israel.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, in 1906, the Antiquities Act was passed by Congress to give the President authority to declare our national monuments were historical landmarks and structures. But this act required that declaration be confined to the smallest possible area to do a given job. In 2023, we see the original intent of this bill has become almost unrecognizable.

Much like Congress has experienced and the American people have experienced with the Clean Water Act and

the definition of the waters of the United States, the executive branch has continually run wild with the authority Congress at one time had granted it.

While the Clean Water Act was used by both the Obama and Biden administration in an attempt to put all water under the jurisdiction of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., so too has the Antiquities Act been used to take vast tracks of land, especially in the Western United States, out of consideration for economic development and responsible land management, such as for fire.

Some of the early drafts of the Antiquities Act even mentioned a total limitation of any monuments to 640 acres. A limitation on monument size, 640 acres was the original draft. That is only one square mile.

By contrast, in August President Biden designated new lands to the Grand Canyon totaling nearly 1 million acres. That would be approximately 1,500 square miles.

When President Teddy Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act into law, he did so believing it would allow the U.S. to honor its history and protect public lands. All good things.

Today, when word of a new national monument reaches an area, such as my area in northern California, my constituents in Colusa County didn't react with hope or an appreciation of history in this particular instance. Instead, they reacted with anger, frustration, or even fear of what it will mean for lands in their areas.

For example, will the Federal Government still perform necessary forest and land management? That is an issue we deal with continuously. As we saw in my district in 2021, we had a 1-million-acre fire known as the Dixie fire due to lack of forest service management on Federal land.

And another question would be: Can we still allow for recreation on these lands?

Mr. Chairman, this body has allowed the executive branch to take too much of our authority away from Congress. The abuse of the Antiquities Act is just the latest in a long line of white flags Congress has flown against the President.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the thoughts by my good colleague from Maine, and I appreciate her.

In this particular case, we are limiting, relative to the whole country, a small area. This affects several thousand acres, not the entire country. The President's whole powers are in one county in my district, Colusa County in northern California. They have asked not to be included in this monument because it would limit their ability to do important things, such as manage the land for fire danger or recreation. It is really rather sparse land in that area. It is good for deer hunting.

So what is it you really need a monument for? If you are going to do extensive things like mining, drilling, putting in pipelines or power lines, you already have to get permits for those. And it takes the mines we are going to need in this country if we are going to electrify everything, they take 20 years to get a mine made. But that is not even proposed in this area. It is simply to have a little autonomy in the area.

Now, when it wasn't affecting Colusa County, the locals there weren't particularly against the moment as it didn't affect their county. After an additional portion got drawn in, they said, Well, wait a minute. This is our county. We already have difficulty in this rural county with revenue and being able to do the things we need to do in a rural economy, in an agriculture economy or what little tourism they can get out that way too, they are having that option taken away from them.

With the monument, you basically can't do anything on the land, including in many cases, mechanized forest firefighting. You have to go out with hand tools in some of these areas. And so, it just means the fire gets bigger. It just means less options for locals.

I thought the Antiquities Act was supposed to be preserving things for the people's enjoyment, not completely cutting them off. That is why we are so strongly opposed to this being added to Colusa County in this instance here.

With that, I still oppose. I appreciate being able to work over on the other side with Senator Padilla's office on this conversation in moving forward to say, Let us have our autonomy in our areas of northern California where we don't think a monument works for us in order to manage the land as needed.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment would stop the latest in a series of land grabs in the West by the Biden administration.

Many of the Presidential proclamations and the executive actions enabling these land grabs stem from section 216 of Executive Order 14008 signed by President Biden just a week after taking office.

This order started the 30 by 30 plan which seeks to restrict and lock away roughly 30 percent of this Nation's public lands by the year 2030.

``30 for 30'' is a nice series on ESPN about sports figures, but 30 by 30 is very dangerous for us in the West.

In support of this executive initiative, the Bureau of Land Management published a new resource management plan for northwest California at the end of September. Much of the BLM plan area overlaps with my own congressional district.

In total, the so-called preferred alternative detailed in BLM's draft management plan would designate 42,000 acres as protected for the environment or for conservation.

Under the Bureau's current management plan, just 100 acres of land are labeled suitable for wild and scenic river designations, but this draft plan would see the number would explode to nearly 34,000 acres. The difference between 100 acres is one-sixth of a square mile, and 34,000 acres is 53 square miles.

In Shasta County, 33,000 acres would be labeled areas of critical environmental concern. Concern. We can be concerned about just about anything around here, can't we? Several thousand more will be removed from eligibility for livestock grazing. Grazing, which is known to be very helpful in fire suppression and actually stirring the land and having things grow.

The same interest groups that are supportive of this management plan are also behind a continuous push to remove hydroelectric dams now on Butte Creek, as well as the ones we are suffering up on the Klamath River. This would prevent recreational fishing on Butte Creek.

Madam Chairman, the 30 by 30 plan is indicative of how much environmentalists just don't understand real life for rural Americans and certainly life for the people in my own congressional district. If environmentalists actually lived in the Churn Creek Bottom or up in Magalia, they would understand that my constituents who do live there want to take care of the natural resources.

The folks in Churn Creek Bottom don't just graze without regard to the health of the land. They know, because they live there, that they will need to graze this land again in a few months, in a few years, in 10 years, and on, as many families have been doing for six generations in my district.

In my life, I am really a rice farmer. I would fight to protect our rivers from pollution because it is bad for my crops and for my neighbors. This isn't rocket science, folks. Beyond my farm, the waterways in the Sacramento Valley need to be clean because people like to recreate, like to fish, and just have a nice environment. No, we are not bad stewards of the land. We certainly don't need Biden coming in and setting aside 30 percent of all lands in just 7 scant years.

Bureaucrats with orders from D.C., however, should not be telling Americans to stay away from the public lands. They already know how to take care of their lands and their rivers. Most of these resources are the lifeblood of each and every rural town, anyway.

I urge adoption of this amendment in order to keep just a little more freedom, a little more possibilities in the economy and a lifestyle that was once normal in rural America.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have been hearing all day, we need more plans that can gain bipartisan support, yet the people I represent, especially in the northern part of my district, don't believe there is bipartisan support when the Federal agencies come in and take away their water, make it where they can't access their land, they can't

get grazing permits anymore. It is crammed down their throats by an administration that is listening to somebody else rather than them. That doesn't sound very bipartisan.

It is putting these people out of business who have been successful for five, six generations on being good stewards of the land, yet now it is not good enough because of something called climate change, which CO2 only represents 0.04 percent of our atmosphere. That is hardly measurable. Yet we are going hell-bent on ruining our economy, ruining people's lives, ruining legacies because of something that people who fly in their private jets to Davos like to talk about and put upon us.

Madam Chair, 30 for 30 does not do anything for climate change. It just makes it just about impossible to produce domestic food, domestic energy, et cetera, in this country. That is why I am bringing this amendment, and I appreciate an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 588, I mistakenly voted ``no'' when I intended to vote ``aye.''

Amendment No. 112 Offered by Mr. Norman

Mr. Speaker, a year and a half ago, Riley Gaines bravely spoke out when she was forced to compete against a biological male, Lia Thomas, at the 2022 NCAA swimming championships.

It is still an issue. Riley and Lia at the time tied for fifth place in the 200-yard freestyle after Lia had won the 500-yard freestyle the previous night.

On the podium, the NCAA handed Lia the fifth place trophy for the tie that Lia and Riley had and gave Riley the sixth place trophy, telling Riley she would receive her correct trophy in the mail later, not even deciding by a coin flip or some other tiebreaker.

I remember hearing this story and being completely appalled. I was sympathetic for Riley and for the heartbreak and disrespect she and all of the other women and girls had who worked their whole lives to compete at the highest level in collegiate swimming or even in high school and lower levels.

I also remember hearing calls and rebuttals from those who sympathized with Lia Thomas and transgender kids across the country: Just let Lia compete. She deserves it. Transgender kids have the highest rates of suicide. Let them play sports and they will be happy. It is not happening often. Don't worry about it. This is just a one- time thing. This won't open the floodgates.

Unfortunately, this is not a one-time thing. This is happening often, and the floodgates have been opened at all age ranges. In the last year and a half, we have seen countless stories of opportunities being taken away from young women by biological males competing in their sports, whether it is being bumped from first place to second place or top two or males in running events where the girls are losing out on Olympic spots, endorsement deals, college scholarships, or even whether they are going to make the varsity team or not. All of these tragedies for women and girls in sports deserve outrage from all Americans.

In addition, the left has silenced young women who have stated that they feel uncomfortable sharing locker rooms with biological males. Instead, for the case of Lia Thomas' teammates, these young women have been outrageously--get this--told to get counseling.

Just a few years ago, we had the #MeToo movement in which we were told to believe all women, yet a few years later we are being told not to believe women or even see what their feelings and thoughts are but rather believe the biological male who believes he is a woman.

Speaking of believe all women, last week, up in Canada, a 50-year-old biological male was allowed to participate in a swim meet with 13- to 14-year old girls because he identified as a 13-year-old girl. You cannot make this stuff up. This 50-year-old man was able to use the girls' locker room to change with underage young women. I cannot express how angry this makes me and many sensible Americans and Canadians.

Where are the adults in the room? How can any responsible adults allow this to happen, to just blindly stand by and say: Oh, this is no big deal?

The safety, fair competition, and happiness of these young girls should be prioritized over this deranged 50-year-old man who somehow believes he has the right to violate everyone else's rights for his pathetic interest in competing against girls.

We see this other sports as well, in ring fighting and others, where a biological male can actually do very devastating damage to a woman.

What can we do about all this? In the House, we passed H.R. 734, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, back in April. It passed, unfortunately, on a party-line vote. Sadly, not one Democrat could find the way to support and vote in keeping girls' sports for biological females.

I am proud of the Republican Conference for making the safety, privacy, and opportunity of women and girls in sports, and in general, a top priority.

I strongly urge my colleagues in the Senate to bring this bill up for a vote, to put your name on the line as to what you think about the sanctity of women's sports and women's and girls' place in society in general.

In addition, many State legislatures have since passed bills to protect women's sports in their State. Some of their Governors even felt the need to pass a bill titled: the Women's Bill of Rights, which defines the word ``woman'' because of increasing numbers of challenges as to what the words ``man'' and ``woman'' mean. Unfortunately, this is necessary because if we do not codify the definition of sex-based terms, laws that prohibit sex discrimination don't mean anything.

It is amazing that the media figure Matt Walsh has a film titled: ``What is a Woman?'' that many on the left cannot even answer the question, or they give such contorted answers in their nonanswer that it is just pathetic. Even a Supreme Court Justice nominee had to avoid the language. Lord, help us.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the House Committee on Ways and Means is marking up a comprehensive tax relief bill for disaster survivors. My bipartisan bill, H.R. 4970, the Protect Innocent Victims Of Taxation After Fire Act, is included as a provision.

H.R. 4970 will exempt all wildfire relief payments from Federal income taxes and is especially time-sensitive given the recent extension from the October 16 tax filing deadline in California until November 16.

It is essential that Congress get this done and every Fire Victim Trust beneficiary has this massive tax headache alleviated. Fire victims need this tax relief to help rebuild their lives, and they should not go through this tax season with this uncertainty about what they are going to have to pay this year.

The initiative has been a long time coming. Indeed, the fifth year anniversary of the Camp fire in Paradise, California, and surrounding communities is coming up in 1 week.

In the previous term, we had a similar bill included in the government funding package at the end of the year,

but it was removed by the Senate because of a disagreement on tax policy.

The bipartisan bill is a top priority. I commend and thank my colleague Mike Thompson, from the wine country, in helping, and our Ways and Means chairman, Jason Smith, in seeing it through in committee in order to bring this relief to disaster survivors and fire victims.

Mr. Speaker, a recent study that has taken over 10 years by the University of Idaho has shown that cattle and sage grouse can indeed coexist.

There has been a great battle for many years over the sage grouse habitat in Western States, including in my own district in northern California, and the interaction of cattle on that, whether grazing is appropriate or not.

It is found during the study that not only is there no net negative effect for light to medium grazing but that it actually can be a positive benefit in helping to move about the soil and increase the insect biomass that is important for the grouse itself.

The idea of it being a negative has been dispelled by a very long and comprehensive study. It goes to show that what mankind can do with the interaction of nature can be very positive.

Grazing is also very well adapted to fire safety as a plus in our forested areas, as well. We need more to be done by the U.S. Forest Service to have grazing be part of the solution for wildfire in Western States.