Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3058) to amend chapter 69 of title 31, United States Code, to provide full payments under such chapter to units of general local government in which entitlement land is located, to provide transitional payments during fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to those States and counties previously entitled to payments under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. DeFAZIO. With that, I would yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Baird).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Just in response, the gentleman asked three times to bring this bill to the floor with these offsets, and the gentleman from Utah actually said in committee: I am specifically looking at offshore drilling fees, which is a concept of a new fee that is there. I am more than happy to go in that direction. But today they're not. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. DeFAZIO. I suggest the gentleman use some of his time, because I only have one more speaker and then I will be closing.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to the time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Drilling permits are up by two times in the last 5 years. But the price of gas is up by two times in the last 5 years. More permits do not bring lower prices. 10,000 more permits than wells since 2004. 92 million acres of onshore and offshore land currently under lease, but 67 million acres, over 70 percent, has not been developed by the oil and gas companies. They have a lot to work with. They're not doing it. 80 percent of the oil and gas still in the OCS is where there is no moratorium. Now, I don't know why the gentleman, during the nanotechnology debate, nanotechnology which needs to be advanced by this country so we at least don't lose one more promising future technology, is bringing up this issue, unless he's talking about little tiny drill bits that would have less environmental impact.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady. First off, it was the head of ExxonMobil, the most profitable industry in the history of the world, who said he has no intention of building a refinery. He didn't mention regulations or bureaucracy. He said they're doing just fine the way it is, why would they build another refinery? And other CEOs of oil companies have said the same thing. It's not bureaucracy or regulation. They didn't take Bush up on his loophole to put it on closed military bases. So that's not the issue. Don't try that stuff.

Mr. DeFAZIO. There are 36.9 billion reasons why we aren't doing more to protect consumers today, why we haven't filed the complaints against OPEC, why the Republicans voted against investigating collusion by OPEC, why the Republicans created loopholes in energy trading so that Enron could get rich--well, they went bankrupt, actually, but others can speculate in the market, driving up gas 50 cents a gallon today. And they don't want to close that loophole because their rich buddies benefit from it, just like their rich buddies in the oil industry benefit from the lack of supply. But I was shocked to hear the gentleman talk about needing to loosen up regulations in order to get more refinery capacity. A few years ago, George Bush offered to let any oil company that wanted to build a new refinery build it on a closed military base and waive all the environmental laws. How many takers did he get? Big goose egg, zero, none. What did the head of Exxon Mobil say just 2 weeks ago? We're not interested in building refineries; we're doing just fine the way things are. They are restraining, and they have restrained over the last decade, refinery capacity in collusion to drive up the price. It's yet another excuse to drive up the price. So they don't want to build refineries and give relief to the American consumers. They don't want us to take on the collusion of OPEC because they're making money off of it. They don't want us to stop the speculation in the commodities market because Big Oil and big Wall Street are making money off it. And then they want to shift to this fatuous debate about ANWR. They know exactly how much oil is there, unlike anybody else in the world except the one company that drilled the one proprietary well 25 years ago, they're the only people who know if there is or isn't anything there. But we do know underneath the former National Petroleum Reserve, set aside by a much more far-sighted administration 70 years ago, there is a sea of oil underneath the National Petroleum Reserve. And Bill Clinton leased that to the oil industry because they were carping about the need for new places to go and drill for oil. Bill Clinton has been gone 7\1/2\ years. How many producing wells are there in the Naval Petroleum Reserve? Goose egg, zero, same as the number of new refineries, goose egg, zero, because they're making huge profits the way it is. Why should they give relief to the American consumers because relief means lower extortionate profits for them. They have no intention of giving relief to the American people. This is a red herring.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady for her generous grant of time. There might be some small grounds for agreement here. I did hear both the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from New Jersey, and particularly the gentleman from Illinois, in talking in support of the legislation that's actually before us, which does not pertain to gas and oil prices or supply in any way, saying we needed and he supported the idea of research, investment, and education, and moving toward new technologies. The gentleman from New Jersey talked about a transition from a petroleum-based economy. I think there's some grounds, small grounds, for agreement there. But I guess, and I think most American people would agree with that, they know we can't, you know, drill big and burn our way out of this problem. We've got to cut our dependence to OPEC and other foreign sources of oil, and we've got to mitigate the damage on our economy. But then that's where the disagreement starts because mitigating the damage to consumers today means taking some tough votes in this House of Representatives. One tough one was May 20 of last year, rollcall 332. Now, that seemed a no-brainer to me, but it was really tough on the Republican side, and the gentleman from Illinois voted against it. It was to have the Justice Department, United States Justice Department, investigate collusion by the OPEC Nations to unnecessarily constrain supply and drive up the price for American consumers. That was a tough vote for the gentleman from Illinois. He voted ``no.'' He didn't think the Justice Department should investigate. I also have a bill saying the President should file a complaint against the OPEC countries in the WTO. You know, the Bush administration, in fact, is now investigating collusion by OPEC. They still haven't filed a complaint in the WTO. So the Bush administration is taking a step that the gentleman from Illinois opposed, investigating collusion which is gouging consumers. We need a new energy future, but we don't need to allow our consumers to be price gouged on the way there. Mr. Wu raised another issue which the gentleman just brushed off, which is the whole issue that credible analysts say, because of the Enron loophole--remember, Ken Boy? He might be dead but his memory lives on, and about 50 cents a gallon for the American people. Ken Boy Lay of Enron, one of the President's best buddies, got a special loophole from this Republican Congress deregulating derivatives in energy trading so that they could speculate. Well, he's dead, Enron's bankrupt, but the speculation is rampant. And experts tell us probably 50 cents on every gallon, 50 cents on every gallon today, you want to give immediate relief, reregulate the commodities market. You're not regulating the price of gas. You're just saying you can't have derivatives and you can't have Morgan Stanley holding more futures contracts and more fuel than ExxonMobil. Just reregulate the market. They can't self-deal. Just reregulate the market. Just bring some regular trading back to that market that existed before 2000. You could save tomorrow 50 cents a gallon. Now, you can talk about ANWR, and he talked about it with great certainty. I've been sitting in on debates for 20 years over ANWR. One well was drilled. What was there we don't know. It was proprietary. There are estimates from a little bit to a lot of oil. But he knows exactly how much is there, interesting, and how much revenue it would bring, even more interesting, since right now oil from Alaska can and is being exported from the United States of America. I guess he's worried about the Chinese energy problem because that's most likely where any additional supply from Alaska would go until we develop more refinery capacity, which the industry refuses to do. And there are ways to drive them to make that investment, but the gentleman doesn't support that legislation either, which I've introduced. So we're hearing a lot of bloviating and talk on that side of the aisle because Republicans are running scared because their coffers have been filled by this industry for years and they were put into power and Bush was put into the White House and Dick Cheney was put into the Vice President's mansion by this industry. And this industry is kind of unpopular right now. So they want to pretend they want to do something 10, 15, 20 years out. Let's even bring it a little closer in. The gentleman again talked about ANWR. Well, right just a little way away from ANWR, guess what, there's something Bill Clinton leased called the Naval Petroleum Reserve. We know there's oil under that. Bill Clinton leased it. Bill Clinton's been gone seven-and- a-half years. How time flies. How many producing wells are there in the Naval Petroleum Reserve drilled by American companies who have leased that reserve? None, not one, not a single one. So, if the need is to get more production going in Alaska, how about they drill the wells in the Naval Petroleum Reserve where we know there's oil as opposed to pretending there might be oil in ANWR, and we could drill way over there, and it's also a lot further from the existing pipeline and other shipping capabilities. So there's a heck of a lot of stuff, as I said earlier in my 45- second response--I regret I didn't have time at that point to yield to the gentleman. He's not here now. I would have given him at least 30 seconds--to develop out there, but the industry isn't developing it. Ten thousand permits that haven't been actuated, and they start talking about Illinois. These Federal leases aren't in Illinois. I'm not aware of any Federal leases in Illinois for oil exploration. These are off the coast where 80 percent of the supply is accessible through existing leases. The industry just hasn't seen fit to develop it. Why not? Because it's working really well for them right now. Record prices. They don't really care about supply. They sure as heck don't want more supply to bring down the price. Plain and simple, they're extorting the American people. They're extorting through collusion with OPEC. They're extorting through speculation in the energy markets, and they're extorting by withholding their drilling from leases they already have while pretending they need more. Plain and simple, it's a scam. And I'm really disappointed that the gentleman is going to oppose my bill later when he talks about all the revenue that could be realized, when right now royalty-free oil is flowing out of the gulf because of a bureaucratic error, and he doesn't want to fix that problem because he thinks the oil companies need the money more than my counties and schools, and we'll hear more about that later.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, this House will take up a critical piece of legislation, H.R. 3058. This legislation would extend the secure rural schools program for 4 years. If this legislation is not adopted, we expect that more than 7,000 teachers in rural districts across the United States of America will be laid off. We expect that in more than 600 counties critical services such as sheriffs deputy patrols, jail deputies who perform services in the jail, and other critical emergency services will end. Road funds will be impacted in terms of critical road and bridge maintenance. This is must-pass legislation. But we also recognize that the United States of America is in a fiscal bind here. So the Democrats have reimposed something pretty simple most Americans live by called pay-as-you-go. So we had to figure out a way to pay for this. We've gone through a whole ream of proposals, and we've found one that works, and I think in this time of record-high oil and gas prices, it's particularly appropriate. We would have in place a renegotiation of existing leases which omitted a price trigger at $35 a barrel or impose a conservation resource fee if those companies would renegotiate. A number of good citizen companies have renegotiated, including Shell, BP and Conoco. A number of other not-so-good citizen companies, those which are extorting incredible amounts of money from the American consumer, such as ExxonMobil, have refused to renegotiate, and they're trying to take their unintended windfall. Now, many on the other side of the aisle are going to say this is unconstitutional. Well, I would urge my Republican colleagues to read the CRS Report for Congress, No. RL 33974. It addresses those issues in depth. It's not a taking. It doesn't violate the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. It doesn't violate substantive due process and equal protection. And it doesn't cause a breach of contract. In fact, CRS finds that the government, but of course not this administration, the Bush administration, may have a cause of its own under a section called unilateral and mutual mistake. Everyone admits these provisions, these triggers are supposed to be in the bill. At $35 a barrel, that's about $100 a barrel ago, the subsidies were supposed to go away for these oil companies. They didn't because some bureaucrat messed up. So, in fact, the preponderance of evidence is that the government has a cause of action to reinstate lawful charges against those oil companies. This bill would do that, and it would assure the future of more than 600 counties, hundreds of school districts, 7,000 teachers. If we don't pass this, if you lean on the slender read, if you're concerned about the wealth of the oil companies, I refer you to ExxonMobil's and others' most recent statements. I refer you to the Wall Street Journal to look at the price of oil hovering in the upper $120 a barrel when this fee was supposed to come in at $35 a barrel. You can't lean on the unconstitutional read, but if you do want to side with the oil companies over and above rural schools, public safety, maintenance of roads, bridges and highways in rural counties across America, then you will side with the oil companies in this vote tomorrow. I hope a majority of my colleagues join me on the right side of this issue.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and for this amendment. I think this is very necessary. This is not a fine debate about semantics or definitions, it's an issue about the integrity of the intelligence process in the United States of America. It's well-known now that because of a focus that was created by Vice President Cheney in the lead-up to the Iraq war and the exclusion of the broader views of the intelligence community, that the intelligence that was provided to the Congress and other decision makers was not comprehensive and not accurate. So the question arises about the language in the bill. Instead of taking the newly formed and reformed national intelligence agencies and getting their opinion on the capabilities of Iran, it would single out one component of those agencies, the Department of Defense, to write a new opinion. I, for one Member, can speak for myself, am concerned that this is an attempt to redirect our intelligence and to get intelligence that is only coming from a small portion of the intelligence community, the same failing that led to the lead-up and the faulty intelligence for the Iraq war. We have reformed the intelligence process. We have confidence in our National Intelligence Director, and we should allow him to do his job and compile the advice from all the intelligence agencies of the United States Government, as was done last fall, which contradicted previous opinions on Iraq. We don't want to send any message or direction that we are unhappy with that. We want them to do their job, do it properly, properly inform us, and there is no reason why any sort of additional evaluation should be restricted only to the Department of Defense. That just doesn't make sense. So it's not an argument about semantics, it's about the fact we were failed in the run-up to the war by cherry picking and focusing of intelligence. We don't want to be failed again. We want the full opinion of the national intelligence agencies.

Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman is extraordinarily confused. Domestic propaganda? Propaganda to convince the elected officials of the people of the United States or the voters of the United States that some misbegotten objective will be good for the country? That's what you're talking about. We're not talking about using intelligence or using our own auspices overseas, the Voice of America, whatever, to spread the voice of freedom and democracy around the world. But we are talking about deceiving the United States Congress and the voters of the United States of America in violation of the law, a law that was passed in reaction to the Soviet empire. You are advocating the position of the Soviet Union in the 1950s, propaganda to deceive your own people. That is unbelievable to me on this floor. Since the 1950s, since the height of the Soviet Union and the Cold War, we have prohibited propaganda directed at the people of the United States using taxpayer dollars by the Pentagon. What happened here was a violation of that law, and that anybody would stand here on this floor and say that that law, which we have had in place for more than 50 years, should be repealed or undermined by one narrow-mined administration or Vice President Cheney or anybody else who wants to manipulate intelligence, the Congress and the American people into a war that should not have been initiated is unbelievable at this point in time. An informed, free and fair press is critical to our system of government to have informed decision-makers here. Maybe you don't want to hear the truth, but I do, and to have informed voters who are voting based on the truth and choosing their elected representatives based on decisions that they fully understand and that they have been fully informed on and not propagandized. It's extraordinary to me in the 21st century anybody would advocate the use of propaganda against the voters and the people of the United States.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support on this amendment. It's quite simple. The Department of Defense spends nearly $1 billion a year moving freight and cargo around the United States of America. Much of that moved on truck. Many shippers these days, or brokers, are charging shippers, including the Department of Defense, a fuel surcharge or a fuel-related adjustment, as DOD calls it. It has come to the attention of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee that oftentimes those surcharges that are charged to the shippers are not passed on to the truckers who have got to buy the fuel. Hundreds of trucking firms have gone out of business this year. We are looking at record diesel prices. This amendment simply says that when DOD is charged a fuel-related adjustment, a fuel surcharge, that that must be passed on to the person who has to buy the fuel, generally the trucker, and it has to be posted visibly on the Internet by the broker so that it is known to the trucker and others who purchase the fuel that a fuel surcharge was in place. I thank the gentleman for his support on this important issue.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Cooper Barnes, Tucker Barnes, Connor Magid, and Steven Parker of Veneta, Oregon. These Veneta Elementary School students are 2008 National ExploraVision winners. The team earned first place in the grade 4-6 division for designing an underwater energy generator to harness the power of ocean waves. The team accepted the challenge of this extracurricular activity with enthusiasm, determined to create a technology for clean energy generation that was simple and cost-effective. They were supported and encouraged by their teacher and project coach, Michelle Beller, and Mentor Scottie Barnes. Their working prototype, the Wavemaster, successfully fused science, technology, and imagination, and it worked! ExploraVision, now in its sixteenth year, is sponsored by the National Science Teachers Association and Toshiba. The competition highlights the natural curiosity and creativity of kids. The student projects showcase their innate desire to explore, experiment, invent, and ask really good questions. Congratulations to Steven, Connor, Tucker, and Cooper for their outstanding achievement. I am proud to represent these young Oregon scientists and excited about the potential of the Wavemaster.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, here we have the Republicans engaging in fuzzy math again. Unlike the eight budgets submitted by George Bush, which are taking this country toward bankruptcy, they're so incredibly out of balance, unlike the 12 budgets given to us by the Republican majority here, this budget gets us to balance by 2012. And guess what? It has nothing to do with the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, it's not an issue in the budget. You want to have that debate, let's have that debate in the Resources Committee and other appropriate venues. But if you want to have that debate, I've got a few things to say. I serve on the Resources Committee. We have 6,669 leases that are out there with the oil and gas industry that aren't producing; 30 million acres of land that's covered by that and offshore. We have nearly a quarter of a million acres in the Naval Petroleum Reserve. Bill Clinton leased our Naval Petroleum Reserve to the oil industry. Guess what? They're not yet developing the Naval Petroleum Reserve. There is a tremendous amount to be developed there. But you want to jump and leapfrog somewhere else for imaginary bits of oil. Under the most optimistic estimates, there's 100 days in ANWR. Now, we could do better if every American properly inflated the tires on their cars and their trucks and their SUVs. Try and find an air pump these days, they're darn hard to find. You want to do something? Let's have a Federal program to put air pumps out there and get people to fully inflate their tires. There is a sustainable way to cut demand. But the fantasy of ANWR, which the Republicans want to engage in, is to distract us from the speculation, the profiteering by the oil companies, speculation of the commodity markets driving up prices 50 cents a gallon--legislation they passed for Enron, now bankrupt and defunct. And then we have the issue of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We have come together on a bipartisan basis to say let's lower the price of gas at the pump by not buying the most expensive oil in history. They don't agree with us on going after the OPEC countries. So, you know, let's not talk about something that's potentially 10 years out, that doesn't have anything to do with the budget. Let's talk about real measures on energy. And let's talk about a real budget to get this country back on the path to fiscal sustainability and responsibility.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Despite the fact that America has been at war--we are in the sixth year in Iraq--the President is continuing to attempt to hide the true cost to the American people. He is asking Congress to declare an emergency to pay for the troops' salaries, to provide them with body armor, ammunition, and other needs in the war. It is certainly not an emergency. It certainly could have been anticipated, particularly given the fact that he is so stubborn about not setting any plan to get the U.S. out of that quagmire. But, to add insult to injury, the President says the war in Iraq is an emergency, and $108 billion is what he wants to borrow but not a penny more for domestic emergencies or needs; not a penny more, the President says. He will veto the bill if any of that money is spent here in the United States of America to help Americans' suffering, high gas prices, to help my counties and schools that are losing their Federal money, to help fishermen who have been deprived of their living this year with emergency closures. Those aren't emergencies in George Bush's book, but the ongoing war in the sixth year in Iraq is. Unfortunately, it appears that the Democratic leaders of Congress are going to cave in to Bush's strong-armed tactics and his unreasonable attitude, and will send him a bill that he can sign instead of putting forward Democratic priorities to the President: Extended unemployment benefits, a little bit of energy assistance for the American people who are suffering because they are being gouged by the oil and gas industry, my critical county and school payments, disaster assistance for salmon fishers on the west coast, and others. They appear like they are ready to cave in to the President on this and send him a bill that he can sign. That's wrong. As Democrats, we are here to defend the priorities and the needs of the American people. We know Bush is there for the corporations. We know he is there for his war in Iraq. Let's demonstrate that. Let's send him a bill. Now, in terms of the county and school payments, the Republican Congress and the Bush administration allowed the law to expire. That has created a crisis. Last year, we did get emergency spending despite Bush's then veto threat to help the counties and schools through one more year as we worked on a longer term fix. In December, the House did pass a longer term fix. Unfortunately, since the Senate is not a democratic institution, 40 Senators--40 Republican Senators--were able to strip the critical county and school funding out of that bill. So, again, we languish without authorization for payments in the coming year. So this is an emergency. We are going to see counties that are very large, counties in my district almost the size of New England that are going to be deprived of sheriff's patrols in rural areas. We are going to see jail beds closed and prisoners put out on the streets. We are going to see animal control ended. This is a crisis. These counties have no alternative. They are more than half-owned by the Federal Government. It is the Federal Government's policies that have brought them to this place. That was recognized by the former President as he put in place a plan to make up for the lost revenue from the changes in Federal policies. It is time for this administration to agree that those counties need some help. I have written to the President. I have asked him to change his mind and allow counties and schools to receive at least some amount of funding this year as a true domestic emergency, not to draw a line in the sand and say he will only borrow money to pursue an open-ended war in Iraq, but he will not borrow a penny for the American people.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 964.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 964) to promote the safe operation of 15 passenger vans, as amended.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this issue has been highlighted and brought to the attention of the committee by the ranking member, Mr. Duncan. It is his resolution and he has been an activist on the committee in highlighting the problems of safety with 15-passenger vans. I appreciate his work on this issue. We are intending to hold a hearing on safety issues, and include some testimony from individuals who have had family tragedies because of these vans. The vans have had particular problems with single-vehicle rollover crashes. They have higher rollover fatality rates than any other passenger vehicle type. From 2001 to 2005, the death rate for 15- passenger vans was 250 per million registered vehicles compared to 151 per million for all other registered vehicles. The committee had formerly noted problems with this, and in the SAFETEA-LU legislation which was amended by technical corrections earlier by the House, Congress directed the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to test 15-passenger vans as part of their rollover resistance program. We also prohibited schools from purchasing, renting or leasing 15- passenger vans to transport students. But there are still a lot of these vans on the road. It is imperative that drivers be alerted to the increased risk of driving a 15-passenger van compared to a regular passenger vehicle. There have been cases even when the occupants, particularly children, because of their smaller size, were wearing lap and shoulder belts where tragic deaths occurred in some of these rollover crashes. I look at this resolution as a first step in raising public awareness, and I hope that the committee and other committees which have jurisdiction in this area will take more definitive action in the near future. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would again congratulate the gentleman. It is sad that such a tragedy occurred to one of his constituents. But the best we can do to try to make sense of that tragedy is to try and prevent future tragedies as a result of these sorts of vehicles. It has been fully my intention as chairman of the committee to hold hearings on both these vans and some other related safety items that have come to the attention of the committee. The reason the hearing has been delayed is because the head of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration has been on administrative leave for personal reasons. We expect her back in the not-too-distant future, and then intend to go ahead. But in the interim, by passing this legislation we can at least send the message that we have concern and we can try to alert the American public, we can try and avert more tragedies. I would also point out that our colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee have substantial jurisdiction in this area. And hopefully as they cast their votes for this initiative, this resolution here today, they will think about their jurisdiction and perhaps they too will join with us in raising concerns. With that, I have no further requests for time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the chairman. This legislation includes legislation earlier passed by this House, H.R. 247, endorsed by all the members of the Oregon delegation, to recognize the Jim Weaver Trail. In 1964, the original Wilderness Act put a lot of high elevation Oregon into wilderness, but it left out our precious forests and our old growth. Ten years later, Oregon's most persistent champion of wilderness, Jim Weaver, was elected to the United States Congress. Despite the fact that he represented the largest public timber- producing district in the country, Jim engaged in a battle over the next 10 years to set aside some of Oregon's most beautiful forests for future generations. He engaged in the first fights to preserve old growth, fights which are continuing to this day. The Forest Service originally recommended 370,000 acres for wilderness designation in Oregon. Jim upped the ante a little bit to 1.2 million. He had very, very tough and difficult negotiations with the Senate, and in the end he and Senator Hatfield were able to settle on 861,500 acres, not everything Jim wanted, but a tremendous legacy for our future. At the very last minute, Jim got Grassy Knob added and Monument Rock protected. And then one of the toughest things that he had to do, he was asked by Senator Hatfield did he want Hardesty Mountain or did he want Waldo. Jim chose Waldo. And so it's extremely appropriate that this House acts today to name the trail which encompasses pristine Waldo Lake as the Jim Weaver Trail. And future generations of Oregonians utilizing that trail will begin to understand the history and the fight that went into preserving some of their most precious wildlands, a fight which I'm attempting to continue with wilderness legislation this year, and a fight with the BLM over their attempts to harvest the last of our precious old growth.