Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the State of Washington, a good friend and chairman of our Western Caucus. I appreciate the time and the effort to have this time of education here tonight on the House floor, and for those who would watch and want to actually learn what goes on.

So where do we start on the Endangered Species Act?

Passed in 1973, signed by Republican President Richard Nixon.

Now, if you were to listen to the rhetoric any time Republicans want to talk about reforming the Endangered Species Act or doing things that make sense, I think, out in the woods or with water storage, with mining the critical minerals we are going to need for a lot of these idealistic views, we are going to have more and more use of electricity, you would think that we were

going to be the plunderers of the land. Completely not the case.

The things that are going on right now in the time of drought we have in the West, in my home State of California, and the ongoing problems we have with nonmanaged timber lands, U.S. forest lands, and the resulting effect that has on private lands with the bad neighbors of U.S. lands are typically to them.

If we are in a time of drought, we need to up our game more so on forestry, forest management, thinning, and using these materials for the good of people.

We had a toilet paper shortage months ago, as ridiculous as that sounds in a first-world country like the United States, yet we are burning millions of acres every year. You could trace a lot of this back to the misuse, the abuse of the Endangered Species Act to stop and block the type of work we need to be doing.

We have had hundreds of thousands of acres of fire like over there on the Western Coast, north coast of California. They try to put in a project after a 400,000-acre burn to do a minimal amount, 7,000 acres of clean up, of restoration, of removing some of the dead trees and brush and other things that were left behind along roadways and somewhere around communities, et cetera. Environmental lawsuits come in and stop them from doing 7,000 acres, less than 2 percent out of the fire.

So what is the solution to this? Just watch these ghost trees stay there, watch the brush grow up around all this and become the next tinderbox for the next fire in 5 or 7 years?

That seems to be the solution by those on the far left that use the Endangered Species Act as a weapon to stop progress for people, as well as nature, as well as the environment.

California is in the throes of drought right now big time. Our reservoirs are way down from just 2 years ago when they were all practically full, and 2 years before that topped off, too. You may recall Lake Oroville, the Oroville Dam had the spillway break apart in the early part of 2017, because the lake was actually flowing over the top of the emergency spillway. The dam is in fine shape. The spillway has been rebuilt. And we have stored a lot of water between then and now.

So what has gone on?

So much water has been released out to the Pacific Ocean and not used for people use, for agricultural use or even smart environmental use.

The usage of the Endangered Species Act as a weapon has devastated so much of agriculture in California, which maybe people don't realize that 90 percent of certain types of crops, the vegetable crops that the United States people use come from California. Most of the almonds that you would use come from California.

Where is this going to come from if California is out of business because of the misuse and abuse of the Endangered Species Act, because someone might decide the coho salmon up in the Klamath Basin is more valuable than the sucker fish in the Klamath Lake or the water foul that gets forgotten about in the basin right around there?

Last year, we had a devastating kill on ducks and other wildlife in that Klamath Basin area because they couldn't get water through the agricultural system to where the refuges are for the ducks.

So what species is it we are going to pick?

The water in the Klamath project actually is assigned agriculture use. The Klamath project added additional water storage space to the existing Klamath Lake. Oregon courts have already ruled a couple times that additional water belongs to agriculture. It is not something for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Interior to use in order to make their equations work out on the failed application to salmon in order to, in their idea, flush a virus out of the Klamath River.

There is other evidence out there saying this is actually the opposite of what you should do. That the virus--the C. shasta virus is actually propagated by these additional flows. It is done year after year after year, and the virus keeps returning. Maybe you need to let that stuff dry out.

Also, the sucker fish that they are trying to protect in the lake, the bottom feeding fish, too much water in the lake studies show by the NAS--National Academy of Sciences--that too much water in that lake makes them more vulnerable to predators and doesn't help the sucker fish, which is good at living in a shallow amount of water. So we are going in opposite directions.

Agriculture is devastated in the Klamath Basin. You are probably not going to see the potatoes that In-N-Out Burger uses, horseradish, mint, other products, as well as a lot of hay crops. They are not going to happen this year, except for whatever water they can get from wells up there; not going happen.

So when you see these things not on your store shelf anymore, you will know that there is something going on, or when you see them highly overpriced because we have to get them from some foreign country. You are going to see the root causes because the California water supply has been frittered away for other things besides useful purposes.

And this isn't in defiance of the ESA or helping species, but the right science isn't being used. When you have one-term paper written being used as gospel on the Klamath River as setting policy versus a lot of other evidence--they want to remove the hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River.

Now, when we are talking about drought in California, when we already have lakes and reservoirs that are low, we have--Lake Oroville is going to be at dead pool probably about mid-August.

Now, what is the temperature in mid-August?

Not quite near what my colleague in Arizona was speaking about, but it is hot. So when we have this water supply run out, unable to produce the hydroelectric power that we normally could because we could store it, then we are going to have more power shortages, not just because of power shutoffs. Because when the wind blows in California, now we have to shut off the power because trees and things might blow branches into the power lines and cause another devastating fire, like what is known as the Camp Fire that devastated the town of Paradise, also in my district.

Where is the common sense with this? Where is the common sense of applying if we have drought conditions or, as the left likes to talk about every other speech in this Chamber, climate change, the religion of climate change?

Okay. If the blankety-blank climate is changing, why aren't we storing more water since we, as people, are smart enough to know we will need a water supply?

Why aren't we doing more to cause electricity be generated at that water storage site?

Why aren't we doing more to trim and manage our forests that are overcrowded?

Way too many trees per acre when they have been managed that way for 100 years.

Instead, we go on and on, and somebody comes up with a lawsuit to prevent us from managing forests that way, prevent us from storing additional water.

Not to mention when we talk about all cars have to become electric by 2035. I know a lot of people who aren't interested in buying electric cars.

What happened to the choice people have of vehicles, the size and the style they seek to have?

Yet we are hell-bent on electrifying everything. In the bay area, they want to ban gas stoves and gas appliances in people's homes because of some idealistic view of the environment and somehow tying that back to the misuse of the Endangered Species Act.

All this ties together. The Endangered Species Act has been a great tool to shut down the things we need to do, whether it is the expansion of a highway, water storage. Shasta Dam right now in my district could be raised 18 feet and add right away 640,000 acre-feet of water on those full years. 640,000 acre-feet would be enough for 1.2 million homes or 200,000 acres of crops that people watching this right now like to have for their fresh fruits, for their salads, for their vegetables, whatever it would be. And this is all going to be gone.

Do you like imported oil? Did you love the oil shortages back in the seventies? Do you like this $4 or $5 or $6 gas and diesel we are having right now?

Then you are going to love imported food.

And the Endangered Species Act has been used as a weapon to stop people from farming, from timbering, from mining, basic things that we need in order to have our electronics, to have copper for our wiring, any of those things.

It has been such a weapon since 1973, when it was passed with good intentions. And I still think we need to have it. It saved the bald eagle. It saved a lot of things. But also, its record overall, looking at savings of endangered species, is a pretty low number. Why? Because of ridiculous regulations and ridiculous biological opinions that don't even connect the dots of how this is going to help the salmon in the Klamath River or farther up in Washington where they want to rip some of those dams out, too, and take away that hydroelectric power.

Where are we going to get the stored water? Where are we going to get the hydroelectric power? You want to completely rely on what is a narrow part of the grid, solar power or wind power? You can't even rely on those, not for a major part of the grid. We need to have 24-7 electricity you can count on with either biomass, wood products stacked on the deck, the waste wood that should come from the forestry that we should be doing but aren't doing nearly fast enough, or natural gas plants. We have so much gas in this country now because of hydraulic fracturing, but that is vilified, too.

Pipelines bringing energy where it is needed is vilified, too, because they are using an endangered species somewhere as a tool to stop these developments.

Americans, enjoy these high prices you are getting right now. Enjoy these shortages of electricity, of fuel, the higher cost of food, the shortage of certain food items, because the usage of the Endangered Species Act--and the usage of other environmental laws that have been abused--that has been completely taken out of context from the original intent like Congress passed back in 1973 or layered upon in recent years.

We have to reform this process. It is not because Republicans want to plunder the planet. That is so tiresome. Any time we talk about forest management, oh, you are going to clear cut everything--I'm from northern California--from here to Oregon, or somewhere else.

That is not it at all. Talk to any smart timber operation, and they have 80- to 100-year plans for the private lands that they manage. If you could fly over and look at how these timberlands are managed, you can tell there is generally a checkerboard of private land versus Federal land. You can see the different squares as they are managed either before a fire, ongoing, or after a fire.

Just fly over one 3 years after a fire and see who has actually been out there cleaning up their lands and trying to restore things versus unmanaged Federal land, which is still the big mess it was right after the fire. You will see the way the government is doing it, the way the left is foisting these ridiculous rules and laws upon us and not allowing us to do reasonable reform to bring just a little bit of balance back into what was passed 50 years ago into what we have to deal with.

At this time, when we are watching things go way off-kilter here under this administration, I just remind those watching to look at the root cause. It all ties together, the Endangered Species Act, other environmental laws, other lawsuits, when you can't even turn around to do a simple thing without somebody coming after you, suing you over it.

Look around your own home. Try to build a deck on your own home and someone is going to try to environmentally slow you down on that these days. Farmers are getting fined for building a pond on their land in the Western States in order to retain a little more water for their cattle.

When you see the high prices of these things all happening, look at the root cause. Enjoy these high prices of fuel and electricity and the shortage there, and know it is not because of our policies here but because of the policies of misuse and abuse of endangered species laws, of environmental laws, and all the lawsuits that go along with them.

Mr. Speaker, this chart by the Republican Study Committee shows the difference not just a year makes but what an attitude to governing makes toward making a living and managing families' needs, even enjoying what you have earned and how you see fit to spend it.

Energy independence: Stopping production and oil and gas infrastructure in the U.S. gives higher prices, which are eclipsing $4 now even in my home State of California.

Lumber: Though our California and Western forests burn millions of acres each year, somehow we have a lack of harvest and lumber shortages, thanks to strange environmental thinking prohibiting the forest harvest and management we need to prevent fires and keep the lumberyards full. I know it is not the logger or the log truck driver making the killing here in the quadruple pricing per board-foot.

Home costs: They ride right up there with lumber as well, and all the other inputs, up 20 percent.

Coffee: Up 50 percent. Coffee has to come from somewhere.

Wheat: Up big. Bread and cereal won't be any cheaper. Will the farmer see this windfall? Not likely.

Corn: The same thing. Will the farmer do any better with the much higher cost of corn? No.

Copper: Used in so many of our mechanical and electrical devices, it is going up, making it harder to wire our homes.

The bottom line is: Everything you need is much more expensive, thanks to Biden policy.

Madam Speaker, I want to speak a little while today on the issue going on with the Klamath Basin, which straddles Northern California and Southern Oregon, and the water supply that has been a long-time issue and dispute up there for many purposes, agriculture, hydroelectric power, and endangered fish species, and how these are going to be shared, adjudicated, et cetera.

Currently, the battle in the basin there is how waters can be delivered to agriculture. Last year, in 2020, the situation was very dire where, initially, 140,000 acre-feet was promised to the growers up there. And then they went ahead and started their planning process. They had their crops in the field based on that number. The Bureau of Reclamation decided they were going to pull that back and not deliver that water.

We were able to work with the Department of the Interior and restore that water so that the crops that are already in the field planted would not die, that massive investment and massive loss to the farmers and to the community would not happen.

This year, we have a similar path. In March, the Bureau estimated they would deliver 130,000 acre-feet of water, 10,000 acre-feet less than last year. This of a water right that belongs in the basin of 390,000 acre-feet when fully delivered.

And that is where we need to really discuss this today, is that we are talking about the elevation of the lake here. We have, at the full mark, 4,143.3 elevation is a maximum lake. The project goes as low as 4,136 right down here. So that represents a heck of a lot of water. The farmer's share of this, the 561 is the 390,000 I had mentioned. Currently, the lake sits at 4,140.4 feet of elevation, so that represents availability of 307,000 acre-feet of water supply.

Now, the species of fish that we are talking about here are the longnose sucker fish that is in the lake. It lives in the lower part, the brown area of the lake there. And that is where it is best-suited. It is a bottom-feeding fish.

So the problem is that the Bureau of Reclamation, taking the cue from U.S. Fish and Wildlife, has decided that the water that belongs to the farmers has been adjudicated over time. The Oregon courts have held that these water rights do belong to agriculture. This is after NEPA and the ESA went into effect in the Endangered Species Act Oregon Water Resources Department began the process of detailing and adjudicating these rights.

So in reviewing the water rights of all the users in the basin, they noted that the Bureau claimed the reserved water rights apply only to the primary purpose of that water right, which is determined by a 1978 case, U.S. vs. New Mexico.

The Ninth Circuit determined in a 1983 case, the U.S. vs. Adair, that this land's reservation was for the purpose of agriculture. So as we apply that to the Klamath Irrigation area, the KID took the Bureau of Reclamation to court over its decisions to increase downstream flows to salmon, as well as the retention of water for the sucker fish.

So they want to retain this portion here for the sucker fish even though this portion of water does not belong to the Bureau or Fish and Wildlife to use for that purpose.

This project was created over 100 years ago for agriculture, to deliver water down this A Canal through a whole entire system there. This dam was completed, the Link River Dam, in 1921, to help regulate that source.

So in the process of Klamath Irrigation District having taken them to court, the State ultimately agreed with KID that the Bureau has the right to store the water and administer the

water in Upper Lake, but the Bureau of Reclamation does not have the permit, the license, the right to use the water themselves for salmon in the river or for the sucker fish that stay in the lake.

Going further, Section 8 of the Reclamation Act clearly states that the Federal Government cannot interfere with the laws of States relating to the control or distribution of water used in irrigation.

So in 1978, California vs. the U.S. certified that a State can impose requirements under distribution of water through a Federal reclamation project as long as they are consistent with clear Congressional directives as Congress set this back up over 100 years ago and ongoing. The Congress has made it clear multiple times that the Klamath Project was designed and established for irrigation.

So if you want to concede just for a moment, playing along with Fish and Wildlife, that the current level at 4,140.4, and you take it down to 4,138, there is 173,000 acre-feet of water available for farmers right now that should not be taken, even if you concede the sucker fish total.

So we have got giant problems in the basin.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great concern over the Biden administration's foreign policy. The world has watched with growing concern as Hamas rockets have pummeled the Israeli people, forcing Israel to take retaliatory steps to protect its own citizens. This escalation occurs as the Biden administration has pivoted away from anything useful in the Middle East, neglecting Israel, which is one of our strongest allies.

Just recently, we have learned that over $15 million in foreign aid from this year's phony Democrat coronavirus package went to the Palestinians, who take their orders from the terrorist group Hamas, which is a proxy state for Iran, who wishes the total eradication of Israel. What message does this send to our allies, sending money to both sides?

Similarly, President Biden is looking to restart the Obama-Biden Iran nuclear deal that President Trump smartly left. That naive accord had broad bipartisan opposition, including from now-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and was strongly opposed by Israel. It is astounding that President Biden would take the word of the Iranian Government, whose leaders call us their sworn enemy, and spurn our strongest ally in the region, Israel.

We have got to do better.

Madam Speaker, I hereby remove my name as a cosponsor of

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand up here with my friend and colleague, Representative Cliff Bentz of Oregon, as we both go over in detail the dire situation currently happening in the Klamath Basin in the area bordering northern California and southern Oregon here, upper Klamath Lake.

So this has been an ongoing problem over several decades, really. In March of this year, the Bureau of Reclamation, which oversees the water in the Klamath Project promised that the growers there in the basin would receive 130,000 acre feet of water. This on the heels of 2020 with a similar situation where the Bureau promised water to the growers in the amount of 140,000 acre feet.

Now, this is of a total of a true water right of 390,000 acre feet that is promised in the basin for the project. These are already big cuts to what the original project intent was, with 390,000 acre feet, and the amount that these folks have endured in cuts in recent years.

So when they made that initial March allocation, the Bureau followed up in April, cutting that figure another 70 percent. Remember, 390,000 acre feet cut to 130,000. In April, they cut, additionally, 70 percent more down to 33,000 acre feet. So that is 8 percent of the water the irrigators would have been promised initially.

Last week, another cut was made, now down to just 3,000 acre feet. An acre foot, for those scoring at home, is about 326,000 gallons, or the amount of water it takes to cover 1 acre with a foot of water.

At that point, the 3,000-acre delivery, the Bureau has decided, is not worth the effort to deliver into the district into the canals, et cetera.

So basically what this means, in 2021, no water would flow to the Klamath Project, this is for the first time since 1907, the headgates of the A Canal would remain closed.

From June 1907 to May 2021, some amount of water has always flowed into the Klamath project. From the upper lake here to the A canal. I will show you more pictures later, Madam Speaker, on how the A canal works to feed much of the district.

This area, of course, is populated by Tribes, descendants of pioneers, frontiersmen, and veterans of World War I and World War II who quite literally won a lottery to homestead in the footprint of Lake Modoc.

The water hasn't always been enough, and a mountain of unpleasantries have been shared over the allocation of this resource, but there has always been water at least.

So, I would like to start the conversation on the Klamath going back to the fundamental water rights. The first private ditch in the basin was dug in 1868, and the few irrigation projects that were there at the time were quite small. In 1882, the first bit of land within the current project was irrigated. Authorized by Congress in 1905, it is the second oldest project in the West. There are several hundred miles of main canals, lateral canals, and drainage ditches, and 200,000 acres of irrigated farmland across 1,400 farms. Excuse me, 27,000 irrigable land in the lower Klamath, and to the Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

Today, it is over $200,000 worth of value in alfalfa, hay, wheat, and potatoes, including the ones you would get at In-N-Out Burger french fries as well as pasture.

In 1917, the rock sill between Upper Klamath Lake and the Link River was lowered allowing more flows to agriculture areas and downstream basins.

In 1921, the Link River Dam was completed allowing water to be retained during spring peaks and increasing the total amount of water in the lake.

After nearly 50 years of construction, the final piece of the project was completed in 1964 with the Iron Gate Dam along the Klamath River, one of four dams that are providing hydroelectric power and are currently in peril, too, due to a fish passage issue.

In total, the project allows for nearly 600,000 acre-feet of water to be stored.

So the Bureau of Reclamation has been making an incorrect claim for quite a while to the Klamath project water. They have been involved, of course, since Congress authorized the project in 1905. Every year, the farmers in the basin spend about $30 million to maintain this project, paying the government for that.

The Bureau has acted and operated the project and the head works of the irrigation systems. In 1970 and 1973, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA, and the Endangered Species Act, both well-intended. This legislation effectively requires, according to interpretation, the bureau to prioritize the environment over the well-being and economic security of humans. That is not the original intent of Congress. This is what courts have ruled over the years.

So the fish involved in the current issues are several species. The Lost River sucker fish and the shortnose sucker only exist in the Upper Klamath Lake. From 1984 to 1986, the sucker population began a steep decline heading to their listing as endangered in 1988.

The biological opinions which heavily influence water decisions and allocations coming out of the Upper Klamath Lake are the results of Interior attorneys--longtime career attorneys--here in Washington, D.C. So the recent biological opinions put out in the end of the Trump administration were partly responsible for setting the record straight and helping last year to get a little bit more water to the farmers, as we had to rescue that situation in May in order to have their allocation kept at 140,000.

So when the Lost River sucker was listed, two Klamath scholars actually noted that no one seems to anticipate that the listing of the sucker fish might have serious impacts on the operation of Klamath Project, which the impacts economically to people are required as originally part of the Endangered Species Act. That has all seemed to have gone out the window.

Coho salmon is the other population of fish native to the Klamath basin and adjacent rivers and rivers all up and down the West Coast. Salmon populations have followed a general trend of decline that is seen all across the Pacific Coast.

With all these populations, they are not just in the Klamath River, so year after year, extra water flows down the Klamath River have been used to deal with what is known as the C. shasta virus.

Now, there is a lot of debate whether these flows are actually effective or

not. There are counter opinions that keeping the river wet and all these flushes actually help propagate the virus instead of drying it out and making the virus dry out basically on the vine.

Then there is a similar debate with the sucker fish in the lake that a high level of water in the lake will cause them to be more subject to predators in the lake where the lower level, since they are bottom feeder fish and it is less conducive for the atmosphere for the predators of those fish.

So it is seemingly going in opposite directions. But we also have counter purposes for the Federal agencies that are regulating right now, Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife, that are trying to preserve the deep lake for the sucker and at the same time they want to have the flows go down the river to take care of the C. shasta virus for the salmon--you can't do both--as well as have any water available for agriculture, for the communities, and for the refuges for the wildlife.

So the irrigators despite their receiving no water, the Bureau still plans to send 375,000 acre-feet downstream for salmon.

Now, let's get to what the water rights look like. In 1975, shortly after NEPA and the Endangered Species Act went into effect, the Oregon Water Resources Department began the process of detailing and adjudicating the water rights of irrigators. Under Oregon law Chapter 539, it lays out the process of determining water rights before 1909, when the water rights code in Oregon was initiated, and a large part of this is on the Oregon side of the lake.

This process culminated in the 2013 Findings of Fact and Order of Determination, which were then amended in 2014. Oregon water laws uphold the rights of the irrigators and distributes water based on the seniority of the claim.

So what are the ramifications for failing to deliver the water?

Now, there is still work to be done in reaffirming these property rights, which at the time seemed to be ironclad, but everything is fudgeable these days. So securing the property and water rights of the basin will still continue to be a battle.

While we continue that fight, we must highlight the dire straits of the basin today without water. The canals, the ditches, and the irrigation districts are drying up. This will cause permanent damage to the ditches and the irrigation system there. Basically it is kind of like a wooden boat. They need to be gotten wet, each irrigation system. Also, the groundwater recharges provide for the people and the nearby neighbors with their domestic wells.

Every year the project goes dry or loses water the costs of returning to standard operations will increase. As I mentioned with the canals coming apart, the first water that needs to go in them is actually absorbed by the canals to get them back into shape.

So when I mention the 3,000 acre-feet that are cut down to and the Bureau decided that is not even worth delivering, at least that could be positively used, to some extent, for those systems, as well as I mentioned the groundwater damage without the recharge.

So, most of the basin has to plan and plant, based on what the Bureau tells them in April will be their allocation. For example, one grower there, a fellow named Scotty Fenters, notes that the panic set in when the Bureau revised down their allocation last year in May 2020. He had already bought seed, already paid the rent, and already put the fertilizer in fields.

Can you imagine, you have something halfway done and committed, and they say, No, you are not going to have the inputs anymore to finish?

So in total, about $75 million had been spent planning and preparing.

Now, last year again in 2020 after the Bureau initially reduced their allocation, the basin community rallied. There was a convoy of tractors and trucks that stretched 30 miles to say, You have to keep your word, Federal Government.

So, indeed, it was an impressive turnout.

So we come back to the water rights being upheld.

Last year, Klamath irrigation took the Bureau of Reclamation to court over its decision to increase downstream flows for salmon in the Klamath River. The State ultimately agreed with KID stating that the Bureau had the right to store water in the Upper Klamath Lake, but it does not own that water. It only has the right to move the water on behalf of the growers and the intent of the project. They do not have the right to take the water for salmon or suckers--salmon in the rivers and suckers in the lake.

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time remains.

Now, there is still much ground we need to cover here tonight, but I think I have set the table for what we are looking at and the devastation.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz) for his presentation.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate us being able to team up on this dire situation up in our common area like that.

Let me just touch on this part here. Going into the wildlife refuge aspect and the areas there in the basin that have sustained much wildlife and waterfowl over the years, this is 2020, when deliveries were already inadequate.

Now, it might be hard to see on camera here, but this is a photo of part of the duck kill and the birds that were plucked out of the Tule Lake area here. You can see some of the dots here that indicate dead ducks.

I volunteered one day to go out and help retrieve some of that, to get this problem out of the water there.

They become infested with maggots, and they help spread disease and all that. So this is what this really looks like, the waterfowl that is being devastated up there in 2020, even when it had some water. There were 44,000 acre-feet delivered then. Sixty thousand waterfowl are estimated to have died in

2020. This year, if zero acre-feet are delivered, what is that number going to look like? What is that going to mean for the fly away?

This is one duck we managed to rescue. They had an operation up there to take them back and pluck the live ones that were sick and take them to a nursery and spiff them up and release them once again. That was one small positive. Indeed, part of the bill package that Mr. Bentz and I will be working on, we will have funding for that.

Let's get down to the bottom line here. What do we have that we could be doing this year? This chart indicates the Klamath Project water, what it brings to the table. This is stored water from the 4,143 mark here down to 4,136. This is what mankind can have influence over, and actually, it can be used for a lot of things. I think a lot more of this needs to go back into agriculture and be used for the wildlife refuges as well.

Currently, the lake sits at 4,140. That is 307,000 acre-feet of available water, down to the level where you can't control it anymore. It becomes what they call dead pool.

This is what the suckerfish need here in this zone. This is deemed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the additional 2 feet, 134,000 acre-feet, as the suckerfish number that they want to see.

So if we look at this total number, we still have available, between the current level and the 4,138, 173,000 acre-feet in this lake that could go right now to help keep those canals going, whatever agriculture still could use at this late date in mid-May, and go into the refuges. And it still concedes the 2 feet of surface water, 134,000 acre-feet, to the suckerfish, which is above what is really their right as the Klamath Project is designed and intended and dedicated to agriculture when it was built over 100 years ago.

So, we have 173,000 acre-feet above this arbitrary U.S. Fish and Wildlife number for suckerfish that we could use and put into play.

Will that happen? It is hard telling. It is probably going to take yet more litigation up there to back up what the Oregon courts have already ruled does belong, under the Federal law, to the growers, to the project.

Will we see water going down this A canal here, the initial canal coming out? I don't know.

Do we see it coming through this river dam to get to these end needs? Who knows. Things have gone a different direction under this administration right now.

It is tragic, tragic what is going to be happening to the wildlife I showed you, to agriculture, to the products that we still need.

In the interim, Mr. Bentz mentioned that. We are going to be introducing legislation that has a total package of about $57 million: $40 million will help to fill in what is going to be lost to agriculture and irrigators there; $2.5 million for refuges, which will include the botulism assistance for the disease that is going to be out there for all the dead ducks that are going to happen; $2.5 million for residential wells, as some of them could be going dry if A canal and others are not recharging and replenishing the groundwater supply; $3 million for commercial fishermen; $4 million to repair the inevitable damage that is going to happen to these canals if they don't get wet like my wooden boat analogy; $5 million for food aid through USDA and the BIA, Bureau of Indian Affairs, for Tribes and Tribal governments and their food aid.

Also, at this same time, the Bureau of Reclamation has an expansion and construction of a new headquarters in Klamath Falls that the growers get the bill for in order to get no water this year. We are setting aside, in this legislation, the concept that they need a new building up there to house who knows how many personnel that aren't doing the original goal of the project.

Madam Speaker, $4.3 million is currently obligated. This needs to go back into the relief of what it is going to take to either run the district as it is and direct relief.

Finally, the relief to the farmers themselves is not having to make the payments to the Bureau of Reclamation that they do every year to help pay the bills and keep things going because they are not getting the water.

I am proud to offer that legislation with Mr. Bentz and bring the relief they need. But wouldn't it be something to actually bring them the water that is going to be much more sustaining for the wildlife, for the infrastructure, for the domestic wells, for agriculture, since everybody watching this probably enjoys some of these food products, whether it is the french fries, the horseradish, the mint, the alfalfa that goes for feed for many of the beef products.

There are amazing things that they do up there when you tour that area and talk to these good people who are just trying to do what they have done for generations, what they were promised by the Federal Government, especially our returning veterans after World War I and World War II who were given this promise, especially in lieu, in some cases, of their after-war bonus that they would receive. We need to uphold this promise and quit jerking the chain on the people of the Klamath Basin.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about the proposal for yet another idea for a carbon tax.

This will just drive inflation, which is already a significant problem for Americans, for fuel, for running their small businesses, for taking their kids to school, for just doing the things they do, maybe even going on a vacation.

Costs will go up if we have to tax energy more and more and more for doing business, for buying groceries, for every aspect of our lives, yet another tax heaped upon the people.

There are already proposals around here to raise taxes on fuel or maybe every mile you travel in your automobile. We have seen this in California already. I have watched what a carbon tax has done. It becomes a slush fund for government to spend to use on whatever it is they want to do, such as boondoggles like the high-speed rail in California, which is already triple over its original budget concept.

So why do we want to heap more and more on the backs of families, of small businesses, of a country whose economy is trying to recover by hitting them once again with one more bad idea of a carbon tax when, by the way, carbon dioxide is 0.04 percent of our atmosphere?

A lot of hype is being made out of this. No, the science is not settled by a long stretch, certainly by what human needs are compared to what human cause is.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with deep concern over the escalating attacks on the Israeli people by Palestinian terror groups like Hamas.

After a period of relative stability in the region, these attacks threaten to create an all-out war that will endanger millions. This is an avoidable outcome born of inattention and incompetence.

It is no coincidence that this violence has erupted as the Biden administration has pivoted away from the Middle East. The leadership vacuum created by this absence can only allow radical elements who would harm us and our allies. It is maddening to see the progress made under the Trump administration toward stabilizing the Middle East undone.

It was less than a year ago that the Abraham Accords, perhaps the most significant move toward peace in the region in over a decade or longer, were signed. We cannot let these gains be wasted.

The American people stand firmly behind the people of Israel. They have every right to defend themselves. Their existence depends on it.

The Biden administration must abandon its retreat and reengage on the previous successful peace process in the

Middle East. We cannot abandon our strong ally in Israel by our indifference or inaction, especially when they need us most.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the importance of pipelines to our Nation's energy use and national security. It should be obvious, but with Colonial Pipeline being out of commission this week and the resulting gas shortages, price spikes, and long lines at the gas pump, this highlights the importance of this method of transit. Pipelines offer guaranteed, reliable delivery and are cheaper and safer than any other delivery method.

The extremely rare event of a pipeline being out of commission shows how much we often take them for granted. We have 2\1/2\ million miles of energy-related pipeline in this country. If it can be completed, the Keystone Pipeline, the fourth phase, only 1,179 miles, would make our energy security even stronger. I am hopeful that the events of the past week will cause the Biden administration and many of my friends across the aisle to rethink their hostility toward this project.

Let's work on protecting these systems from cyberattacks. Let's work to build redundancy systems to operate when these attacks get through. But let's also remember what the alternative is when dogmatic policies get in the way and take options off the table. We will continue to need these fuels for the foreseeable future, and I hope we can agree to smart courses of action to embrace the most efficient and safe manner of delivery.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Sergeant First Class Donald Keith Strickland. Donald passed away recently after a long life of service to his country, his fellow Americans, and his family.

Standing with me today is my good friend, Representative Alex Mooney of West Virginia. We are both dear friends of Donald's son, Tony Strickland, who I served in the legislature with and who has a long relationship with this great person here.

What you see in a legacy with a man like Donald, who was an Army staff sergeant, also known as a drill sergeant--which, by the way, the family home was known as ``strict land'' because it was very strict there due to that background. The legacy shows the great family that we know with Tony and his kids and all the wonderful grandchildren that Mr. Donald Strickland had.

He is survived by his wife, Antonie; his three children; and many grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

The legacy of how we are measured is truly in your family and what you leave behind as you touch your country.

For our dear friend Tony, our hearts are with you in the loss of your father, and God bless you all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to recognize the law enforcement officers serving on the front lines. Without them our streets would erupt into chaos, and the law and order our society relies on would crumble. We have seen this happen already too much in this country.

Our law enforcement officers have already incredibly difficult and dangerous jobs. That is why recent attacks on law enforcement by extreme elements wanting to upend our society deeply sadden millions of Americans, myself included, who support the police. Instead of providing the resources to assist our police, these radicals want to defund our police departments altogether.

This is insanity. We should ask ourselves how we can help police do their jobs more safely and effectively, not vilify them.

I am proud to back the blue. The majority of Americans who recognize their security and well-being depend upon the police to back the blue too.

All our law enforcement officers who serve us so faithfully should know that they have our sincere thanks and appreciation, not only during Police Appreciation Week, but always.

Mr. Speaker, yet another blatant political power grab is underway on the heels of H.R. 1, nationalizing all that is wrong with our elections, the packing of the Supreme Court, and now we have H.R. 51, an unconstitutional bill to create a State of Washington, D.C.

The Founders were very clear and specific to leave our District out of the coercion and the tentacles of a State trying to influence it.

No. This is yet another naked power grab to ensure two new Democratic Senators in a 90 percent Democrat district. That is the result they are trying to get. This new State would be 1/17th the size of Rhode Island and about the same population as Fresno, California.

In 1847, the Virginia Retrocession Act took some of the excess land that they weren't using and put it back into Virginia. We can do the same thing with a bill I am coauthoring, taking the unneeded part and putting it back into Maryland, instead of trying to create a State against the Constitution.

This is a power grab that must be stopped. It is unconstitutional, and it goes against the grain of what our Founders had in mind to have separation.

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the smoke and mirrors and fog of obfuscation surrounding the debate on this bill.

What Republicans are doing here today is defending the Constitution and what was put in place by the Founders, that Washington, D.C., the District, would not be part of a State, where it could be coerced or leveraged by a State to get things from it.

I have just heard the last few minutes solutions offered to my colleagues that could probably be passed in 6 weeks or less, to allow what it is they claim they are saying for the citizens of Washington, D.C. Folding those 700,000 residents through a Maryland retrocession, as has happened with Virginia in 1846, would accomplish the goal of the same type of representation they are talking about.

No, the politics is over on that side of the aisle because they have turned down a constitutional solution that this would be, instead, for an unconstitutional one that flies in the face and produces a 66- square-mile State that is \1/18\th the size of Rhode Island, with a population just a little bit larger than the city of Fresno, California, because they want to accomplish a political goal while we defend the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, with so much talk about infrastructure in the air lately, let's do a quick review.

The last sizeable infrastructure bill was done in 2015, to the cost of about $300 billion. Now, what we see is a so-called infrastructure plan put out by the Biden administration and the House and Senate Democrats nine times that size, $2.7 trillion.

We can probably find that much infrastructure to do, except there is a whole lot in this bill that is not infrastructure. Much is social spending and other things that might be good in a different bill, but not this bill.

Also, in order to pay for it, they would seek to dismantle the 2017 tax reforms that did so much to promote and boost our economy and bring jobs back to the United States. It unleashed record growth. Instead, we would hurt that economy by what is in the plan.

How about, instead of tax hikes to cover what is essentially socialist spending tucked into a bill being labeled as infrastructure, let's focus on the work needing done: highways, bridges, levees, dams for water storage, and broadband. These are the things people need and can actively use. What they don't need are choking taxes that harm our economy.

Madam Speaker, I rise out of great concern for the violence and looting that has taken over Minneapolis. Even more troubling is the seeming endorsement and, yes, incitement of it by Members of this body.

It is unconscionable that a Member of Congress sent to Washington to make the laws that govern our Nation would encourage Americans to disregard those laws. Yet one of our Democratic colleagues, only one day after 136 rioters were arrested, called for protesters to ``stay on the street,'' ``get more active,'' and ``get more confrontational'' against our law enforcement, urging this escalation by asking protesters to ignore the citywide curfew. Hours later, that inevitable escalation did occur, with National Guardsmen and police being fired upon.

These are very dangerous actions. Is this the standard by which we want this House to represent the people of this country, that incitement? I recall a lot of talk some months ago about a much lesser speech being inciteful, language must less geared toward that being inciteful, yet it happens here.

Strong action needs to be taken by Speaker Pelosi and this House against these types of words.