Cliff Bentz

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 192, the so- called River Democracy Act. This bill, contrary to what the title implies, has nothing to do with democracy. Instead, it would, if passed, label some 4,700 miles of Oregon's rivers, creeks, and streams as ``wild and scenic.'' A more appropriate phrase would be just waiting to be burned and ruined. However, this is not your typical wild and scenic river bill. This bill would designate a mile-wide corridor running the length of every inch of those 4,700 miles of waterways as wild and scenic. This mile is double the half-mile-wide corridor normal for such designations. This means that under this act, 4,700 square miles--an area about the size of Connecticut--would be locked up and left to the high probability of burning up. Many of the miles of streams, creeks, and gullies to which the bill would apply are within the 20 counties making up my district. Many of those miles run through Oregon's most important watersheds, which are absolutely essential to the life of my communities, particularly in times of drought. Given the damaging impact of such designations to activities necessary to protect these streams, it is no wonder this bill is deeply unpopular, something that has been made crystal clear to me by the overwhelming majority of my 62 county commissioners. They have serious and unanswered concerns about the dangers the act presents. Chief among them is that this designation will prevent what needs to be done to protect these watersheds, placing them in a bureaucratic wasteland where it will take years, if not decades, to initiate and then complete plans which may or may not allow the treatment activities needed right now. Also, a top-down approach to land management is wrong because it completely ignores the interests of well-informed local people, businesses, and stakeholders. The approach the bill's sponsors used in developing this bill was seriously flawed because the river and stream nominations were solicited from various groups and the general public without any clear legal or scientific analysis to identify those rivers, streams, and creeks that would qualify as scenic. If a scientific or legal analysis exists, the sponsors should share it. Additionally, the public deserves to know which special interest groups crafted the bill, provided the unofficial maps of the streams affected, and conducted the outreach to the public. It is absolutely clear, whatever the process was, that local stakeholders, elected officials, county commissioners, landowners, users, and experts should have been consulted, and they were not. Let me explain why so many who truly want to protect our public lands are so outraged by this bill. So far this year, over half a million acres of forests and other lands have burned up in my district. Last year it was even worse with over a million acres laid to waste by fire. Inexplicably, the bill focuses upon only one method of protecting this 4,700-square-mile proposed area from fire, and that is by what are called ``prescribed burns.'' I cannot emphasize how dangerous it is to prescribe prescribed burns in overgrown, densely packed, dry forests without thinning the forest first. Prescribed burning before thinning puts at extreme risk the very rivers and watersheds this designation is supposed to protect. It is like dropping a match in a tinderbox. It is impossible to contain these types of fires once they start. The River Democracy Act, if passed, would threaten watersheds, homes, businesses, ranches, livestock, and most importantly, human lives. The bill contains provisions throughout that leave the door wide open for frivolous litigation by far-left special interest groups, who have profited for years from lucrative sue-and-settle tactics. The bill contains no explicit protections for the current multiple uses of the land, including sustainable timber harvests, hunting, grazing, fishing, and mining. Regardless of legislative intent, the applicable agencies will have broad authorities to restrict these activities. To date, no official maps have been provided. Oregonians need to have access to clear official maps to see just how much land is affected by this bill. I believe no further action should be taken with regard to this bill until the questions I have raised today and necessary maps are made available to the public so that Oregonians know exactly what this bill would do.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Madam Speaker, American families and businesses across our country are facing a crisis, a crisis of inflation, the likes of which we have not seen for more than 30 years. Last month, the Consumer Price Index hit a 30-year high. What does this mean for everyday Americans? Gas prices are up 50 percent from last year. Food prices are rising to the highest level in 12 years. The price of eggs is up 42 percent. The price of milk is up 17 percent. The price of a new car is up $5,000. Home prices are going through the roof. Last week, I met with farmers and ranchers in central Oregon who are paying far more for fertilizer, feed, fuel, herbicides, and all crop inputs. This is on top of the incredible difficulties caused by historic drought, supply chain disruptions, and a shocking shortage of labor. Given all this, what are President Biden and Speaker Pelosi doing to address the biggest inflationary spike in decades? Well, they have no plan except to spend even more trillions of our tax dollars on more and probably irreversible welfare programs. The $2 trillion spending bill would raise taxes, increase our national debt, and drive inflation even higher. Sadly, American families will pay for this bill one way or another--but most immediately, right now, through inflated prices on everything from diesel fuel to the Thanksgiving turkey. The $2 trillion Build Back Better bill is on top of the $1.9 trillion spent in March and the $1.2 trillion spent a few weeks ago. Even former officials from the Obama administration have warned that these unprecedented levels of spending will result in higher inflation. American farmers are now warning that this spending bill could result in the demise of many family farms and ranches. Spending trillions upon trillions of dollars will cause more crippling inflation for American families and businesses. This radical reconciliation bill would not help us build back better. Instead, it will damage my State and our Nation for generations to come.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4035, the Real Justice for Our Veterans Act of 2021. Unfortunately, many of our Nation's veterans suffer from substance abuse disorders, mental health conditions, and trauma. According to data from the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 60 percent of combat veterans in our Nation's prisons have reported mental health disorders. Veterans treatment court programs are modeled after other specialized treatment court programs, such as drug treatment courts to provide services specific to meet the unique needs of veterans. Veterans treatment courts are not only designed to benefit veterans in the criminal justice system, but taxpayers as well. These treatment programs lower recidivism for participants who complete them, saving money that otherwise would have been spent on incarceration. H.R. 4035 will expand data collection on these treatment programs to ensure that our veterans are getting the most effective treatment possible. H.R. 4035 also authorizes pilot programs to make grants to improve retention rates in veterans treatment court programs. It allows veterans in jurisdictions that do not operate veterans court programs to participate in drug courts instead. Congress must do everything in its power to protect our Nation's veterans and ensure that they get the very best treatment. This is exactly what this bill does. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 921, the Jamie Zapata and Victor Avila Federal Officers and Employees Protection Act. In 2011, members of the Los Zetas drug cartel gunned down ICE Agents Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila in an attempted carjacking. Agent Zapata was killed. The perpetrators of this terrible crime were members of the Los Zetas hit squad on a mission that day to shoot and steal vehicles for cartel operations. The murder and attempted carjacking occurred in Mexico. So the perpetrators were extradited to the United States to face trial for the murder and attempted murder of the American agents. In 2017, the cartel members were convicted under section 1114 of title 18 of the United States Code, which prohibits the killing of an officer of the United States. They were sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because the crimes occurred on foreign soil, section 1114 did not apply. In light of this ruling, Federal law enforcement officers and civil servants stationed overseas are made more vulnerable to attack. The decision created a circuit split and opened a loophole in Federal law reversing centuries of precedent that the law was intended to apply extraterritorially. The bill simply codifies centuries of precedent and legal understanding by clarifying the extraterritorial application of three Federal statutes to protect our Federal law enforcement officers and other Federal officials. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in May. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BENTZ. In closing, 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 S. 1502, the COPS Counseling Act of 2021. With recent attacks on law enforcement agencies from the left, including calls to defund the police, officers around the country have suffered from persistent and increasing physical and mental stress. Police departments are experiencing dropping retention rates and officers are left with fewer colleagues to support them while also facing more crime. As a result the need for new and better performing peer support groups with State and local law enforcement agencies has risen. This bill would help alleviate some of that strain from dealing with the ever-increasing amount of violent crime over the last year by supporting and encouraging the use of peer support groups. Some people feel like there is a stigma related to addressing mental health needs, making mental wellness difficult to address. Peer support programs can help address this challenge in the law enforcement community. Officers who are in need of help may be most comfortable reaching out to their fellow officers especially if their confidentiality is protected. This bill requires the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services, to develop a report of best practices for peer support programs. These best practices required under the COPS Counseling Act will help State and local law enforcement agencies establish new peer counseling programs and enhance existing ones. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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 S. 1511, the Protecting America's First Responders Act of 2021. This bill is about taking care of our Federal, State, and local public safety officers who are working on the front lines every day to protect us. Our Nation's law enforcement officers need our support now more than ever. Over the past year, we have seen violent crime rise in nearly every major urban area. During this spike in violence, we have seen city councils defund their police departments, taking vital resources away from the brave men and women who protect us day in and day out. On top of that, our law enforcement officers are dealing with all of the complications of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Fraternal Order of Police, over 700 public safety officers have tragically lost their lives due to COVID-19. That number will inevitably continue to rise. The Department of Justice's Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program provides assistance to officers and their families in the event that they lose their lives or are catastrophically injured in the line of duty. The PSOB Program reviews over a thousand claims submitted every year. The program provides a one-time, lump-sum payment of $370,000 for officers who lose their lives or are catastrophically injured in the line of duty. The payment amount is adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index. Each claimant's payment amount is determined by the date of the injury or death, but the claim may take years to adjudicate. This bill corrects this inequity by requiring that payment amounts be determined by the date of adjudication for any claim that has been pending for over a year. This will help these law enforcement officers and their families account for increased cost of living and other expenses that are subject to inflation during these lengthy adjudication periods. The PSOB Program also provides interim payments for death claims if the claimant is likely to receive an award under the program, but the interim payment amount has not increased since 1976. This bill will increase those interim payments for death claims from $3,000 to $6,000 and require annual adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index to ensure that Congress will not need to make further adjustments in the future. The PSOB Program also provides educational benefits of $1,200 a month to children of public safety officers who have been killed or disabled in the line of duty. Here, too, many of these claims for education benefits are not adjudicated in a timely fashion, and many children do not receive these benefits. This bill will provide backpay to the children of fallen and disabled public safety officers who qualify for benefits but failed to receive benefits due to a delay in processing these claims. Finally, this bill will update the PSOB Program's definition of disability to ensure that law enforcement officers who are permanently unable to secure meaningful, gainful employment following a catastrophic injury in the line of duty remain eligible for benefits. This is a critical and necessary piece of legislation, and I am proud to support a bill that takes care of the men and women of our law enforcement community. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ. 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 have no further speakers and am prepared to close. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Korean War veterans and Vietnam War veterans from Oregon's Second Congressional District who are visiting their memorials on the National Mall through Honor Flight of Oregon. When I have the opportunity to meet these heroes, I am reminded of the enduring words of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who affirmed that ``The history of free men is never really written by chance--but by choice--their choice.'' The words he spoke then, Madam Speaker, still ring true today. Those who value liberty are indebted to these heroes, for each one made the choice to defend freedom through acts of extraordinary service and incredible sacrifice and bravery on behalf of our country. It is my privilege to include in the Record their names. The veterans on this Honor Flight from Oregon are as follows: William Baker, Air Force; Wendell Bayse, Navy; Harold Busch, Coast Guard; Charles Cruikshank, Army; Richard Dluehosh, Marine Corps; Roy Drago, Army; David Driggers, Navy; Garey Fritz, Army; Billy Gentry, Army; Richard Harley, Navy; Harl Hawkins, Jr., Marine Corps; Edmund Larios, Army; William Nunn, Army; John Pavllicek, Army; JeJy Peter, Army; James Prevatt, Army; Terrel Roberson, Army; Douglas Roberts, Army; Richard Thommen, Army; Gusravo Tovar, Army; Gregory Turnbow, Army: Gary Wishart, Navy; and Franklin Yates, Army. These heroes join over 240,000 veterans who have been honored through the Honor Flight Network of volunteers nationwide since 2005. I would also like to recognize the volunteers and guardians traveling on this trip who have served our country: Donald Deland, Navy; Brian Driggers, Navy; Rodney Edwards, Army; James Hawkins, Army; Clinton McAuliffe, Navy; Dane Prevatt, USMC; Earl Schroeder, USAF; and Colben Keith Sime, USMC.; Madam Speaker, in his 1796 farewell address, General George Washington said, ``You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels and joint efforts; of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.'' As a nation, we must never take for granted the liberties we enjoy today, recognizing that these freedoms have been hard-won by the honor, commitment, and sacrifice of our veterans. Each member in this chamber and citizen in these United States should be humbled by the courage of the brave veterans who voluntarily underwent `common dangers, sufferings, and successes' in order to preserve our country and way of life. My colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their remarkable service and devotion to our great country.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Madam Speaker, this bill would operate to freeze in place, to substantially chill, changes to the election processes of some of the 90,126 State and local government units found in this United States. Madam Speaker, I assure you, the election processes of many of these State and local units are not perfect, but this bill would chill necessary corrections and updating of such election processes. Why? Because the bill creates a private enforcement cause of action, with attorney fees to the prevailing party, and establishes a clear risk to these 90,126 government units of incurring tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorney fees if the government unit gets it wrong and violates the subjective standards, such as the undefined term ``diminishes'' found in section 4A(c)(2) in the bill. Madam Speaker, after what we have been through in the last election, we should be working to encourage certainty and clarity in our election processes. This bill does not do that. It does the opposite.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, the problem is drought, and the problem is currently being suffered by some 70 million people across the Western United States, including many in my district. Reservoirs, creeks, springs, and wells are going dry, leaving fish, people, wildlife, homes, and agriculture without water. Republican Members have been working hard to bring attention to this issue. We organized a Republican water forum where we spoke with expert witnesses from across the West who are dealing with this issue every day. They are the ones from the communities directly affected. This problem does not exist in a vacuum. Drought makes wildfires far more severe, and severe wildfires destroy watersheds, in turn making us even more vulnerable to drought. This horrific cycle will only continue until we find a better way to manage our forests. I think Ranking Member Westerman's forest resilience bill takes a huge step in that direction. My district right now is experiencing the third largest wildfire so far in the State's history. It has burned some 400,000 acres and is now only 56 percent contained. Some of my colleagues here are facing equally dangerous, destructive wildfires in their own districts, all worsened by the drought. The effects of this drought are devastating. Crops die in the fields, entire herds of cattle are being liquidated, trees and shrubs die from lack of water, home wells go dry, businesses leave, and communities are devastated. We need to do something. Briefly, I want to talk about the drought in the Klamath, which is in my district. I spoke earlier this summer about the situation and how the Bureau of Reclamation announced that earlier this year for the first time in the Klamath Project's history, there would be no water allocation to its largest part. This decision to allocate all of the water that the farmers had stored for their use instead to in-stream use is devastating to the people who live in those communities. Their livelihoods depend upon having adequate water. But this is, in the Klamath, a regulatory drought because there is sufficient water in a lake that if shared would have at least offset some of this damage. This illustrates the challenge posed by the Endangered Species Act, which was the foundation for the decision by the Bureau of Reclamation to allocate all of the water to in-stream and in-lake purposes, with none of the water going to the farmers. I have asked the Secretary of the Interior and other Department of the Interior officials repeatedly to allocate at least a small part of the 350,000 acre-feet of water to the project. Those requests have been denied. This denial has not only harmed the farmers. It has also harmed waterfowl who reside in a refuge in the center of the project. Last year we had more water than we do this year, and even then waterfowl suffered devastating botulism outbreaks. This will happen again this year and, sadly, this is totally preventable if at least a small part of the water was allocated to the district. The short-term solution would be a financial relief package that Representative LaMalfa and I are working on. I do hope that we will be successful in getting that passed. The long-term solution, though, is to engage in far more careful storage of water and utilizing other means of conservation and finally bringing balance to the Endangered Species Act. I would like to thank Ranking Member Westerman for organizing this Special Order hour to bring attention to this incredibly important problem in the West. It is time for both parties to put politics aside and get to work on this issue.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the Nation's attention to a tragic event unfolding in my State of Oregon, the horrifically destructive Bootleg fire. This fire, now the third largest in my State's history, has consumed some 400,000 acres. That is about 660 square miles of previously beautiful landscape, pine, fir, sagebrush, grass, and meadows. The fire has taken millions of board feet of timber, the lives of thousands of forest creatures, cattle by the dozens, if not hundreds, horses, fences, buildings, and homes. The fire has released hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon, which could have remained sequestered far into the future. The smoke plume created by this conflagration has reached across this Nation, more than 2,000 miles, to pollute the air across the U.S., reaching finally the East Coast, including the air right here in Washington, D.C. I have spoken with people whose homes and ranches were in the path of this fire. It moved so fast they could not gather and remove their cattle in time to save them. They have been sending me pictures of animals that have perished and pictures of many others who had to be put down because of injuries they suffered from the flames from which they could not escape. These are truly some of the saddest photos I have ever seen. How did we get here? Fires happen naturally in our Western forests. They have always been a part of the Western landscape. These fires used to burn low to the ground at relatively low temperatures. Underbrush, vegetation, and smaller trees would burn, and in what were normal times, larger trees would survive. Then about 100 years ago, our Nation decided to put out and suppress these fires. For years the trees and brush that grew unabated by fire were reduced to some extent by logging activities then allowed in our forests. In the 1970s, forests saw the beginning of a steep reduction in forest management, and our forests began to grow unnaturally dense. Federal regulations decimated the timber industry, leaving more and more trees and brush on our Federal lands. The fires, fueled by this huge amount of ever-increasing woody mass, grew in their ferocity and danger. And now, after years of fire suppression and woefully inadequate forest management, we are paying the price. The horrific infernos we are seeing out West are not the fires of centuries past. These terrifying, out-of-control wildfires become so immense, they often start burning from the top of the trees, not from the underbrush, leaping from treetop to treetop, causing the fire to travel faster and burn hotter. The blame for our forests' deplorable and dangerous condition does not belong to any one person or group. However, I must call out the massive special-interest lawsuit industry that profits from the operation of the Equal Access to Justice Act by legally kneecapping almost every attempt to manage our Western forests. So what is the long-term solution? We are seeing some early evidence that managed forests fared far better than did forests that were not thinned or otherwise treated in anticipation of the fires that are sure to come. Firefighters on the ground indicated that thinned areas slowed down the fires so that firefighters had a fighting chance to bring the fire in those areas under control. This is good news because it means there is some hope. There is a way out of this if Congress can find the political will to work toward a solution. I am pleased to report I am working with ranking member Bruce Westerman, whose Resilient Federal Forests Act will be a huge step toward giving the Forest Service the tools it needs to better manage our vast public lands. In fact, today, I introduced legislation included in that package, the Commonsense Coordination Act. This bill will cut through some of the red tape that agencies must overcome to complete critical forest management activities. I express my sympathy to the people suffering from the Bootleg fire and all the fires across the West. My staff and I have been on nonstop calls with local officials, county commissioners, and ranchers. The experiences they are sharing are incredibly sad and made more so by the fact that we could have done so much better when it came to protecting our Nation's forests and those that live in and around them. I will continue to do all I can here in Congress to help. Lastly, I thank all the brave men and women who are out fighting the fires, including firefighters, farmers, ranchers, helicopter pilots and others. This is hot, dirty, difficult, and dangerous work, but their tireless efforts are saving lives, homes, forests, wildlife, livestock, and property.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 created a special immigrant visa, or green card, program for Afghan nationals who have worked for or on behalf of the United States Government for at least a year and who have experienced a serious threat as a result of this work. The program also provides green cards to the spouse and children of the Afghan national. To date, over 15,500 green cards have been issued to principal applicants. Additionally, for each principal applicant, an average of 3.5 green cards have been issued to the spouse and children. Section 221(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires an alien seeking a U.S. green card to undergo a physical and mental exam prior to the issuance of the green card. Any communicable diseases found during the exam must be treated before the alien is allowed to come to the U.S. This reasonable requirement helps to ensure that aliens do not introduce communicable diseases into the U.S. population once in the country. H.R. 3385, the HOPE for Afghan SIVs Act of 2021, allows the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State to waive the medical exam requirement until after the Afghan SIV holder is admitted to the U.S. Proponents of the bill believe that the waiver authority granted by the bill will speed the pace of processing for some of the Afghan population seeking green cards. Timing is important because, earlier this year, President Biden announced that American troops would withdraw from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021. The Taliban continues to fight and take over districts in Afghanistan. There is concern that the lives of the Afghan nationals who work for the U.S. Government, and their families, are in danger because the Taliban intends to kill them. Many in Congress would like to see all 18,000-plus remaining Afghan nationals and their families who are at some point in the SIV process immediately brought to the U.S. However, there is no way to adequately conduct the necessary background checks and to otherwise process that many green card applications in such a short timeframe. As sympathetic as we are to this population and this situation, we should not abdicate our duty to thoroughly vet potential green card recipients. H.R. 3385 is a measured response to the chaotic situation surrounding the Afghan SIV program. This bill is yet another piece of legislation that has skipped the committee markup process this Congress. Had this bill gone through regular order, we would have been able to discuss concerns and make potential changes. That said, late last week, Judiciary Committee Republicans worked with Mr. Crow and Mr. Wenstrup, as well as Chairman Nadler, to address some concerns. For instance, the sponsors agreed to reduce the 90-day window after admission for the alien to complete the medical exam to 30 days. During a global pandemic and outbreaks of other serious communicable diseases in Afghanistan, the shorter time period is more prudent. In addition, the introduced text contained no mechanism to help ensure that the alien actually gets the medical exam. The bill sponsors agreed to include such a mechanism. The suspension text makes clear that a green card issued to the beneficiary of a medical exam waiver is a conditional green card, which means the alien should not be able to naturalize without having completed the requisite medical exam. The bill's sponsors also agreed to add a requirement that the administration report to Congress on the number of Afghan SIV holders who do not comply with the medical exam requirement. Even under the improved suspension text, U.S. taxpayers may bear the cost of the medical exams and any requisite treatment for illnesses discovered. Currently, the alien bears the cost of medical exams prior to admission to the United States. However, once in the country, they are entitled to public benefits, including Medicaid. That said, the text we are considering today is a better alternative to the introduced version. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the bill sponsors and the chairman to address these concerns, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).

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, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Brad Hicks, who retires on June 30, 2021, after working nearly 28 years with The Chamber of Medford & Jackson County, serving as its President and Chief Executive Officer for 21 of those years. Brad was raised in Grants Pass, Oregon, and graduated from North Valley High School in 1983, where he served as Class President. Brad attended Southern Oregon University, graduating with a bachelor's degree in Political Science in 1987, and then worked with members in the Oregon State Legislature and the United States Congress for nearly five years. In 1993, Brad returned to the Rogue Valley, beginning his career in chamber management as the Membership Director for The Chamber of Medford & Jackson County. In 1999, Brad took leadership of The Chamber as its President and CEO. As leader of The Chamber, Brad's experience in government helped him develop a unique strategy focused on encouraging competition among small businesses, limiting their tax burden, and promoting highly qualified workers. Brad also raised serious questions about how businesses were expected to thrive while government was failing to capitalize on Oregon's economic advantages. He also focused The Chamber's attention on issues ranging from Oregon's convoluted tax structure, failing transportation strategy and a higher education system that failed to produce skilled workers. Brad's efforts led to the creation of ChamberPAC, a business advocacy organization. The amazing level of support Brad was able to generate for businesses in Southern Oregon won him several well deserved and prestigious honors. In 2009, Brad earned the internationally recognized Certified Chamber Executive designation from the Association of Chamber of Commerce Executives. Brad was the only sitting chamber CEO in Oregon to hold this certification, which helped earn him a seat on the United States Chamber of Commerce Committee of 100. Additionally, both the Oregon State Chamber of Commerce and the Western Association of Chamber Executives named Brad the Chamber Executive of the Year. In 2018, the Western Association elected Brad as its Chairman, the first Oregonian to lead the 94-year-old association, which consists of members from 19 Western States and three Canadian provinces. Brad is most recognized for nearly doubling the size of The Chamber on several occasions and achieving the title of the largest Chamber of Commerce in Oregon and on the West Coast. Brad took The Chamber to even greater heights garnering the respect of the local community, the State of Oregon, and across the Western United States. Brad's focus and work has always been to benefit business owners and communities throughout Oregon and the Nation. In fact, Brad would help a struggling business owner in Jackson County whether they were a member of the Chamber or not because he knew that a thriving business would always be a positive force to the community. Even in retirement, he plans to spend the first year in an advisory role with the Chamber while he builds up his own business consultancy company. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the remarkable career of Brad Hicks. For a man of his ability, who demonstrated superb leadership and dedication to Oregonians and Americans alike, we cannot thank him enough. Brad's achievements and reputation speak for themselves, and as an Oregonian, he has brought great credit to himself, his community, the State of Oregon, and our great Nation as an industrious leader in commerce.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Madam Speaker, I thank Congressman LaMalfa for his years of work on the extraordinary problems in the Klamath. Let me, again, by talking briefly about drought and what it means. I select this as a starting place because many out here in the East have the opposite problem--too much water. Sadly, to those of us in the West, the term drought is all too familiar. We know what the word means because we have lived in drought conditions for years. Drought means no water. It means bankruptcy. It means catastrophe. It means the death of trees, plants, animals, and dreams. In anticipation of drought, out in the West, we have developed means of surviving when droughts occur. We have built reservoirs, dams, canals, pipelines, drains, wells, and legal systems to deal with the supply and allocation, legally and practically, of water--this most precious, essential, and life-giving resource. These systems, legal and hydraulic, provided the essential and irreplaceable foundation of communities in the West. These laws, and the water divided under them, provided a reliable and dependable system upon which futures were planned, families were raised, and rural towns with churches, schools, and hospitals were built. Droughts were expected, but Western communities were prepared--or at least they thought they were. But change has come. Change has come in the form of the Endangered Species Act and in the form of even hotter and drier weather. This law and these warmer, hotter conditions have upset--some would say, destroyed--the systems that entire communities have relied upon for well over a century. Let me be clear: The Endangered Species Act is the law, and I am not suggesting we break or violate it. Recently, I called for unity in the Klamath basin urging calm and cooperation in the face of this incredible and damaging challenge. But if ever there was an example of the need to refine and better implement the Endangered Species Act, what is happening to the Klamath basin this year is that reason. But it is simply not possible to change the way the ESA is implemented in time to help this year. As I mentioned, and all of us know, there is another thing happening: it is getting hotter and drier, and all of our systems, manmade and natural, are under stress--the stress of severe drought and an ever-increasing demand for water: demand from fish, demand from wildlife, demand from agriculture, and demand, soon, from rural homes which rely on wells for their water. What can we do? First, we must do our best to tell the Nation that some 60 to 70 million people across the Western United States will be suffering this year from the cost and the loss of severe drought. The Klamath basin in Oregon and California unfortunately is the poster child for this disaster. Secondly, we must call out clearly and loudly that our laws, as written and enforced, when faced with the choice of instream use for ESA purposes on one hand or the community on the other, will allocate all of the water to instream use, letting other needs go begging. It must be noted that the water being given by the law and the means of enforcing it operates to give all of the water to the instream interests, even though this allocation is in excess of that which would have naturally flowed down the river during summer months. Once again, I want to be clear that this allocation of stored water for instream purposes is a choice of what to save and what to let go. That choice has costs--incredible costs. Now, it is not my goal today to attack the administration, the Department of the Interior, or the Bureau of Reclamation. It is my goal to call out that this country has, through its government and its laws--the Endangered Species Act--made a decision to take water from a community and to use it for another purpose, placing the burden of that choice on people and other less fortunate creatures not protected by the ESA. What is that cost? Some have said at least $400 million will be lost in the Klamath community this year. But that hardly tells the story. So let me elaborate. The average farmer has mortgage payments, property taxes, irrigation district assessments, equipment payments, and most important of all, the need to house and take care of his or her family. Without water, there are no crops, no income, and no ability to pay the bills all families have. Many producers in the basin have supply contracts that they have worked for years and years to achieve and retain. If producers cannot deliver on those contracts, for example, with Safeway and Whole Foods Market, those contracts are lost to other competitors, and many times to other countries, such as Mexico, Chile, Australia, and Brazil. Oftentimes, these contracts can never be recovered. Beef and dairy producers lack grass for cattle because there has been no rain and they cannot irrigate. Hay is in short supply and prices for hay have increased dramatically. Beef and dairy producers are forced to sell their cattle because they cannot afford the cost of buying hay. Rebuilding these herds will require years and years and much more debt. In addition, the increased supply of cattle to market causes immediate reduction in prices, adding insult to injury. Then there are jobs. Thousands of agriculture-related jobs will be lost. People who have been employed in the farming area for years will move away, and many will never return. Then there are farms. This is the second consecutive year of what may be many years of too little water to meet the many needs of the community. As the level of uncertainty regarding the future becomes ever more pronounced, more and more young people raised on farms lose faith in the future of farming and ranching and choose other careers. The average age of the American farmer is now late fifties, and it keeps going up. This trend means that we will become more and more dependent upon foreign countries to sell us food. But everyone agrees, in principle, we should grow our food here at home. The pandemic and more recently the shipping crisis have shown us that a global supply chain is not always dependable. This choice, along with many others, to treat farmers and ranchers as though they are expendable, is bad for our Nation and bad for our future. When we talk about infrastructure, let's not forget that those who know how to operate farms and ranches are part of the essential infrastructure of our Nation. These choices that don't balance the needs of our environment and the community are driving food production into other countries, putting us all at risk. In addition, this drought will create and is creating extraordinarily negative environmental, public health, and safety impacts. The waterfowl, reptile, and amphibians mentioned by Congressman LaMalfa that rely on our canal system, ditch banks, and irrigated fields will simply not be there. They will die, as there is no water in the canals or on the fields for them. There have been and will continue to be dust storms--think dust bowl. And this is no exaggeration. Two national wildlife refuges rely exclusively on the Klamath Project for water. They will receive no water for those wetlands and habitats this year. They will dry up. The waterfowl that use them will be hurt. There are 1,800 domestic water wells in Oregon within the geographic area served by the project. These will be affected. The drought comes with another side effect, increased wildfire risks. Last summer, my district was devastated by once-in-a-generation, supposedly, fires that burned over a million acres in Oregon, destroyed thousands of homes and businesses, wiped away two entire towns, and killed 11 people. Dry vegetation and forests, combined with poor management, are the perfect storm for out-of-control wildfires. Those fires will damage the Klamath watersheds, making this bad situation worse. What can we do? In the short term, Representative LaMalfa and I are proposing a $47 million critical aid package to help those hit hardest by the drought in the Klamath. Congressman LaMalfa will go through it in more detail. Long term, we strongly believe there are critical legal issues that need to be addressed. Farmers in irrigation districts have strong objections to the reallocation of stored water. Dams and reservoirs were built to capture water during the wet time of year to have water available during the dry time of year. We have done that in the Klamath Project, and irrigation districts pay for the infrastructure that provides that storage. But now the government is requiring that we direct the release of stored water away from farms to artificially increase the amount and flow in the Klamath River. During the irrigation season, the Klamath Project will be providing much more flow in the Klamath River than ever would have occurred naturally before the project existed. This is a legal problem, and it needs to be addressed. More water storage is needed. A future of hotter, drier summers means this problem is not going to go away. In the Klamath and across the West, we need better infrastructure and a long-term plan so we have enough water for farms, cities, fish, and refuges. As snowpack decreases, and it is, water storage is critical, to have a reliable store of water when these droughts occur. For long-term stability, we need the community to come together and figure out how to escape the zero-sum game that gives all the water to one use, ignoring others. There are critical parties to make this happen, and we need support of that work from the State, the Federal Government, and our community. Agreement can be reached. This has been done elsewhere. As mentioned earlier, we need to protect and improve our watersheds. This means our forests. Each year, all stakeholders face uncertainty and risk. This fight over water has fractured the Klamath community and will fracture others. To address these extraordinarily difficult problems, we must work together toward a long-term solution because this situation is not sustainable. Next year's weather may well be worse than what we are facing now. Everybody is being harmed. There are no winners in this situation. Fish populations are not recovering; farms are not receiving enough water; refuges are going dry. In the short run, perhaps, we can get through this year with the government's help. But in the long run, the Klamath community will have to decide what kind of future they want. Congressman LaMalfa and I stand ready to work with everyone in the Klamath Basin to come up with real long-term solutions. It is time to sit down together and figure this out.