Cliff Bentz

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is a great example of how Democrats legislate: Make a bunch of drastic changes and then consider the consequences. The amendment calls for two studies to be conducted, after the enactment of the bill, to evaluate how State legislation on marijuana has impacted those States. The first study will be conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on the impact of State legalization of recreational marijuana on the workplace. The second study will be conducted by the Department of Education on the impact of legalization to schools and school-aged children. The amendment also requires the Department of Education to develop best practices for educators and administrators to protect children from negative impacts. This amendment recognizes the fact that the majority is blindly leading us down the path of marijuana legalization. The information to be provided by these studies would better serve this body and the children of America if we had it before legalization. Last year, the percentage of American employees testing positive for drugs hit a two-decade high. This jump was driven by an increase in positive marijuana tests. This amendment is merely window dressing on a bad and incomplete bill. Rather than tackle the actual problem of marijuana abuse at the workplace, which could have disastrous consequences, Democrats simply want to study the issue. This amendment is a tacit admission that they know this bill is flawed, and it is a ploy by the majority to say they addressed one of the flaws. I fear the information that the studies will reveal may come too late for many if this bill were to become law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that I agree there has to be the proper determination of when you are impaired after you have used marijuana. I made that argument in my discussion of the bill. The issue is one of timing. It is not just impairment. There are many other things in the bill that need to be addressed that aren't. In this rush to legalize, what we have is a lot of assuming, as was just suggested, that everybody is already using it, so why bother? Well, a lot of people are. But after it becomes federally legalized, more will be using it. Thus, the danger level will increase. We can't sit here and say there are no consequences of legalization. By that, I mean the same number of people using it. The questions become: When are we going to do this? Why wasn't it done earlier? Why wasn't it done yet? One of the reasons is that it is really hard to make this determination. What I am saying is, it is a matter of timing. But it is not just this issue; there are many others. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is April Fools' Day, so maybe this is a joke. This amendment would require Federal agencies to review every decision to rescind or deny a security clearance since 1971 to determine if it was based on marijuana usage. Then, the agency would have to track down every person who was denied a clearance due to marijuana use. The agency would then let them know that the decision will be reassessed unless the person objects. This is crazy. It creates a huge burden on Federal agencies for what? Even if this bill were to become law, the denial of these security clearances was based on a person's willful violation of a law at the time. When agencies are assessing whether these people should have access to national security sensitive information, the consideration isn't whether the person uses marijuana. It is whether the person is willing to undermine the rule of law. If they can't follow this Nation's laws, then we can't expect them to follow the processes to protect our most sensitive information. Further, this amendment reaches back more than 50 years. How many of these people still need, want, or are even eligible for security clearances? No one gets a security clearance just because you want one. You can't just walk up off the street and apply for it. You need to be employed with the Federal Government or a government contractor, and your employer must need you to have access to the information. Very few people who were denied a security clearance in 1980 are still employed in or even qualify for positions that would require security clearances. Some of the people we are talking about may be retirees in their eighties or nineties. Many of them may have representative payees who are their children or grandchildren. Why would we want to expose the fact that their father, mother, grandfather, or grandmother was a marijuana abuser? The gentleman from Maryland wants the Federal Government to re-create the security clearance backlog that the Trump administration just cleared up for unneeded reviews and to resurface private information. This amendment makes little sense. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I just point out that I didn't concede anything that I recognize. If you thought I did, please rethink it. I want to point out that the security clearance isn't just for Federal employees. It is for private contractors and people seeking security clearances. All I am saying is, one can refer to our ``bureaucrats'' as though they don't have other things to do. They do lots of very important things. I would suggest this falls pretty low on that list. It is an interesting amendment, but I urge opposition. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

Mr. BENTZ

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

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, American businesses and American citizens face a growing number of cybercrimes. Cybercrime is a particularly complicated form of criminal conduct and one that costs Americans billions of dollars a year in theft. This bill would require the Attorney General to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to develop a method for categorizing different types of cybercrime. The Attorney General would also establish a cybercrime category in the National Incident-Based Reporting System so that States can better report cybercrime data to the Federal Government. The bill would also require the Bureau of Justice Statistics to include cybercrime victimization questions in the National Crime Victimization Survey. There is no question that we must do more to bring cybercriminals to justice. In August of 2021, the Biden administration released a notorious Russian cybercriminal early from Federal custody. The individual is described as, ``one of the most connected and skilled malicious hackers ever apprehended by the U.S. authorities.'' And for unknown reasons, the administration let him out of Federal prison early and shipped him back to Moscow. We have asked the Biden administration's Justice Department for more information about this early release of this cybercriminal, but we have received nothing as of yet. Similarly, we don't have enough information to determine whether this legislation will bring more cybercriminals to justice. We haven't heard from relevant stakeholders on these issues, and we haven't held hearings with experts to determine whether this is the right step at this time. This bill would require GAO to submit a report to Congress that assesses the effectiveness of reporting mechanisms for cybercrime and disparities in reporting data between cybercrime and other types of crime. Why aren't we starting with that? Why are we making changes to cybercrime reporting mechanisms before the GAO can evaluate whether the existing reporting mechanisms are effective? It makes more sense for us to have hearings, evaluate GAO's findings, and hear from experts. Then we can examine whether the other provisions of this bill are necessary and appropriate. In another instance of putting the cart before the horse, the Committee on the Judiciary is scheduled to hear from Bryan A. Vorndran, the assistant director of Cyber Division at the FBI tomorrow. Perhaps we should have waited to see what he had to say before rushing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3359, the Homicide Victims' Families' Rights Act of 2021. This bill creates a process for relatives of homicide victims to request that Federal agencies rereview the case of their lost family member once the case has gone cold. To be clear, this bill would only apply to Federal cases of murder, and it wouldn't apply to murder cases investigated by State and local law enforcement, which are most cases. The majority of cold cases at issue under this bill are likely to be cases arising from Tribal jurisdictions. Fortunately, President Trump already took steps to try to solve cold cases in Tribal jurisdictions. In November of 2019, President Trump signed an executive order to create the Operation Lady Justice Task Force. In its first year, this task force opened seven offices across the country to address the number of missing and murdered indigenous women. The task force held listening sessions, Tribal consultations, webinars, meetings with law enforcement, and victims' services programs, and formed domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions. The task force put out guidance and protocols, developed relationships with entities like missing persons clearinghouses, began training for investigators and volunteers, and started a public awareness campaign. This was all in 2020. This legislation is cut from similar cloth as President Trump's executive order creating that task force. Hopefully, it will motivate the Biden administration to continue President Trump's good work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1621, the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution ensures that criminal defendants have the right to a trial by jury. This right is so important that our Founding Fathers preserved it in the Bill of Rights. It is a hallmark of our great country and one of the many things that separates us from other countries. Our commitment to trial by jury means we accept the jury's decision whether we agree with it or not. This bill would prohibit Federal judges from increasing a defendant's sentence based on conduct for which the defendant had been acquitted by a jury. In 1987, the United States Sentencing Commission established Federal sentencing guidelines. These guidelines allow judges to consider conduct that was not formally charged or proven beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial, so long as the judge finds the conduct relevant by a preponderance of the evidence. There are numerous examples of this happening. Judges have intervened to overrule the determinations of juries and have handed down harsher sentences after considering conduct for which the defendants have been charged and acquitted. Allowing judges to consider acquitted conduct punishes people for a crime for which they have not been convicted. It is wrong and violates the spirit of our Bill of Rights. Both Justice Kavanaugh and the late Justice Antonin Scalia recognized the fundamental unfairness of using acquitted conduct at sentencing. Both said it must stop. In 2015, as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, then-Judge Kavanaugh wrote: ``Allowing judges to rely on acquitted or uncharged conduct to impose higher sentences than they otherwise would impose seems a dubious infringement on the rights to due process and to a jury trial.'' I agree with Justice Scalia and Justice Kavanaugh. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BENTZ. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

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

Mr. BENTZ

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

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

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

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Madam Speaker, I move to recommit H.R. 936 and have my amendment that strikes the retroactivity provision of this bill included in the Record. It is wrong, clearly not right, for Congress to step in and retroactively invalidate parts of millions of existing contracts. The parties to those contracts, in good faith, relied on those parts of their contracts when they struck their bargain. But if this bill becomes law, it will rewrite millions of existing contracts, which will lead to waves of new litigation. This litigation will place new costs on businesses, consumers, and employees, who will be forced to pay more for lawyers, hundreds of dollars per hour and may get stuck for years in long court battles instead of having available the solution of arbitration. Applying new laws retroactively undermines the rule of law and upends the certainty that parties are trying to create when they negotiate and enter into a contract. My motion would make this bill apply only to agreements entered into after this bill goes into effect. I offered this amendment at the markup in the Judiciary Committee, but the Democrats there rejected it. I offered this amendment to the Rules Committee, but the Democrats there chose not to make it in order. I offer this amendment for a third time here on the floor of this House because this matter is critically important. Retroactively voiding millions upon millions of existing contracts is truly bad policy. By making this bill apply only to future contracts, we can avoid the inherent unfairness of having Congress directly interfere in millions upon millions of existing agreements. I urge my colleagues to support my motion to recommit. Madam Speaker, if we adopt this motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on the Judiciary to consider again my amendment to H.R. 963 to ensure that the Democrats' attempt to eviscerate arbitration will not apply retroactively to the millions upon millions of contractual agreements already in place. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Madam Speaker, outdated and complicated permitting processes, excess paperwork, environmental impact statements, and years-long litigation processes have delayed or prevented projects all across Oregon, especially in my district, which covers more than two- thirds of the State. Federal permitting involves too many agencies and too many bureaucrats. As far as Federal agencies are concerned, there are no consequences for time lost or money spent. Nowhere is this problem more pronounced than in forest management. For decades, Congress has stacked process upon process, creating more and more red tape for agencies to deal with. Of course we want to know what the impact of a project will be. However, when the processes of determining that impact stall action for up to 20 years, the system is obviously broken. With over 70 million acres of our national forest at high or moderate risk of wildfire, there is an urgent need to reduce the amount of unneeded and dangerous fuel. We have seen the tragic results of inaction as millions of acres of our beautiful forests burn each year, including over 10 million acres in 2020 alone and over 7 million acres in 2021. In my home State of Oregon, over a million acres burned last year in the Labor Day fires. Last summer, smoke from the massive Oregon Bootleg Fire spread across the entire United States, visibly fouling the air and poisoning people even here in Washington, D.C. The Biden administration issued a 10-year plan acknowledging the wildfire and forest health crisis and calling for treatment of an additional 20 million acres of the National Forest System, a fraction of what is actually necessary. Congress recently provided the Forest Service with over $6 billion in the bipartisan Infrastructure and Jobs Act to increase hazardous fuels reduction and forest restoration activities. The agency, however, remains buried in red tape, endless analysis, and frivolous litigation. A 2014 GAO report found that the United States Forest Service did more of the most costly and time-consuming NEPA reviews than any other Federal agency. These National Environmental Policy Act reviews often require the Forest Service to spend over $1 million to complete paperwork, and then they take an average of almost 5 years to merely authorize small and inconsequential forest thinning projects intended to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire to our forests and communities. While precious time is wasted, massive wildfires rage on, dumping billions of tons of toxic, cancer-causing pollution into our air. This is an environmental disaster rapidly becoming a nightmare. Congress must take action to give the Forest Service additional tools to reduce the time, cost, and litigation that delay the agency from authorizing and implementing these critical projects. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Resilient Federal Forests Act, which would do just that. Earlier this year, I expressed my concern on this very floor about the so-called River Democracy Act currently pending in the Senate. It would place new management restrictions on some 3 million acres of Federal land in Oregon by establishing a 1-mile wild and scenic buffer along some 4,700 miles of creeks and, in some areas, dry gulches. The Forest Service recently reported that over half of the 2 million Forest Service acres of land impacted by this act is at high risk for wildfire. Treating these acres only becomes more difficult, if not impossible, with these types of designations. It is time to overhaul our Nation's permitting and NEPA process. Current laws and agency rules hand far too much power to litigation groups that use sue and settle tactics to profit off our tax dollars by delaying and, in some cases, preventing important restoration projects. We need serious, thoughtful reform to put an end to this abuse. I am glad my colleagues share my determination to make that happen, and hopefully it will be a bipartisan process.