Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 4596.

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

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 83, I missed the vote as I was unavoidably detained due to traffic getting on to the Capitol Grounds. Had I been present, I would have voted Yes.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues are aware of the situation in Harney County, Oregon, where a group of armed protesters have overtaken a Federal facility in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. This group is led largely by people who are not necessarily from Oregon, although they obviously have supporters from Oregon. They were originally there to protest the sentencing of Dwight and Steve Hammond. I know the Hammonds. I have known them for probably close to 20 years. They are longtime, responsible ranchers in Harney County. They have been sentenced to prison not once, but now twice. I will get into that in a moment. The point I want to make at the outset is for people in this Chamber to understand what drives people to do what is happening tonight in Harney County. I have had the great honor and privilege to represent Harney County for a number of years. I have seen the impact of Federal policies from the Clinton administration to the Obama administration. I have seen what happens when overzealous bureaucrats and agencies go beyond the law and clamp down on people. I have seen what courts have done. I have seen the time for Congress to act and then it has not. I want to put this area in perspective because I think it is really important to understand how big this region is. By size, my congressional district in Oregon is something like the seventh or eighth biggest in the Congress. If you overlaid it over the east coast, it would start in the Atlantic and end in Ohio. The county where this occupation is taking place--Harney County--is over 10,000 square miles. There are 7,000 souls inhabiting it. If my math is right, that is one person for every 1.4 miles. One person for every 1.4 miles. Just this one county is 10 times the size of Rhode Island. It is larger than the State of Maryland. And 72 percent of it is under the command and control of the Federal Government. It is the public's land. That is true. But what people don't understand is the culture, the lifestyle, of the great American West and how much these ranchers care about the environment, about the future, about their children, about America, and how much they believe in the Constitution. Now we see the extent they will go to in order to defend what they view as their constitutional rights. Now, I am not defending armed takeovers. I do not think that is appropriate. I think the time has come for those to consider that they have made their case in the public about what is happening in the West, and perhaps it is time for them to realize they have made their case and to go home. But I want to talk about what happened with the Hammonds. I want to put in perspective what happens almost every year in my district. That is these enormous wildfires. The Miller Homestead Wildfire in 2012 burned 160,000 acres, mostly in this county, if not all; 250 square miles, a quarter of the size of the State of Rhode Island. That was just in 2012. The Barry Point Fire that year, in Lake County, next door, burned 93,000 acres. Last summer alone, we burned 799,974 acres across Oregon; that is both forest and high desert. In 2012, 3.4 million acres burned in Oregon. There was another fire in Malheur County. The Long Draw Fire, in 2012, burned 557,000 acres, five times the size of Rhode Island. So 93,000 acres, 557,000 acres, 160,000 acres, all burning. The Hammonds are in prison tonight for setting a backfire that they admit to, that burned 139 acres, and they will sit in prison, time served and time going forward, 5 years, under a law that I would argue was never intended to mete out that kind of punishment, and I will get to that in a moment. I have told you I worked with the Hammonds and many ranchers in Harney County. In the last years of the Clinton administration, despite their own agency's reviews and analysis, Bill Clinton threatened to create a giant monument on Steens Mountain. When Secretary Babbitt, the Interior Secretary at the time, came before the House Resources Committee, of which I was a member, I said: Mr. Secretary, your own resource advisory committees in the area just reported that there was no need for additional protection on Steens Mountain, and yet, you and the President are threatening to create this national monument. Why do you waste the time of the citizens to go through a process to determine if additional protections are needed and then ignore what they came up with? To Bruce Babbitt's credit, he agreed when I told him: I think you would be surprised about what the local ranchers and citizens of Harney County would be willing to do if you give them a chance. To his credit, he said: All right, I will give them that chance. And he did. We went to work on legislation. It took a full year. I worked with the Hammonds. I worked with Stacy Davies, I worked with all kinds of folks, put a staffer on it full-time, multiple staffs, and we worked with the environmental community and others. And we created the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act, model legislation, never been done before, because I said: We don't have to live by past laws, we write laws. So we wrote a new law to create a cooperative spirit of management in Harney County. The Hammonds were part of that discussion. We saved a running camp, Harlan Priority Runs. We protected inholder. We tried to do all the right things and create the kind of partnership and cooperation that the Federal Government and the citizens should have. Fast forward on that particular law. Not long after that became law, and it was heralded as this monumental law of great significance and new era in cooperation and spirit of cooperation, some of those involved on the other side and some of the agencies decided to reinterpret it. The first thing they tried to do is shut down this kids' running camp because they said: Well, too many, maybe more than 20, run down this canyon and back up, as they had for many, many years. They wanted to shut it down. So we had to fight them back and said: No, the law says historical standards. Then the bureaucrats, because we said: You should have your historical access to your private property, if you are up on Steens Mountain, you should maintain that access like you have always had it. Do you know what the bureaucrats said? They began to solicit from the inholders in this area: How many times did you go up there last year? You see, they wanted to put a noose around the neck of those who were inside. That was a total violation of what we intended, and we had to back them off. See, the bureaucracy wants to interpret the laws we write in ways they want, and in this case they were wrong, not once, but twice. Then, a couple of years ago, I learned that, despite the fact we created the first cow-free wilderness in the United States under this law, and said clearly in this law that it would be the responsibility of the government to put up fencing to keep the cows out, as part of the agreement, the Bureau of Land Management said: No, we are not going to follow that law. And they told the ranchers they had to build the fence. I networked with my Democrat colleague from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, who was part of writing this law. I said: Peter, you remember that, right? He said: Yeah, I didn't like it, but that was the case. BLM still wouldn't listen. So we continued to push it and they argued back. Well, it turns out there had been a second rancher who brought this to my attention who they were telling had to do the same thing, build a fence, when the government was supposed to under the law I wrote. The arrogance of the agency was such that they said: We don't agree with you. Now, there aren't many times, Mr. Speaker, in this job when you can say I know what the intent of the law was, but in this case I could because I wrote the law, I knew the intent. Oh, that wasn't good enough. No, no, no. No, no, no. The arrogance of these agency people was such that we had to go to the archives and drag out the boxes from 2000, 1999-2000, when we wrote this law, from the hearings that had all the records for the hearings and the floor discussions to talk about the intent. And our retired Member, George Miller, actually we used some of his information where he said the government would provide the fencing. They were still reluctant to follow it. So I put language in the appropriations bill that restated the Federal law. Do you understand how frustrated I am at this? Can you imagine how the people on the ground feel? Can you imagine? If you are not there, you can't. If you are not there, you can't. You ridicule them. The Portland Oregonian is running a thing, what do you send? Meals for militia. Let's have fun with this. This is not a laughing matter from any consequence. Nobody is going to win out of this thing. This is a government that has gone too far for too long. Now, I am not condoning this takeover in any way. I want to make that clear. I don't think it is appropriate. There is a right to protest. I think they have gone too far. But I understand and hear their anger. Right now, this administration, secretly, but not so much, is threatening, in the next county over, that looks a lot like this one, Malheur County, to force a monument of 2.5 million acres, we believe. I think this is outrageous. It flies in the face of the people and the way of life and the public access. There is a company, Keen Shoes, that already has a big marketing campaign. This is about selling shoes, for God's sake. I call on the President, if he wants to help reduce the tension that is out there, to walk away from this. And if he doesn't want to walk away and say, no, we are not going to do that, to help us bring down this level of frustration and anger, then at least be honest, or his Secretary of the Interior needs to be honest with us and tell us they are going to do it. Either they are or they aren't. But all they are is being coy. That feeds into this. It feeds into the anger that I feel. It feeds into the anger out there. So the President should say: I am not going to do a national monument. I am not going to add more fuel on this fire in the West. We have fought other issues. More than half of my district is under Federal management, or lack thereof. They have come out with these proposals to close roads into the forests. They have ignored public input. They often claim to have all these open meetings and listen to the public, and then, in the case of Wallowa-Whitman, the forest supervisor who was eventually relieved because of this, I believe, completely ignored all the meetings, all the input, all the work of the counties and the local people, and said: Forget it, I am going my own direction. There were 900 people that turned out at the National Guard Armory where they had a public hearing, standing room only and beyond, furious. You see, how do you have faith in a government that doesn't ever listen to you? How do you have faith in a government that, when elected Representatives write a law, those charged with the responsibility of implementing it choose to go the other direction and not do so? That is what is breaking faith between the American people and their government, and that is what has to change. The other thing that has to change, the law under which the Hammonds were sentenced. Now, they probably did some things that weren't legal. I have given you the size of the acreages that burned naturally. I haven't gotten into the discussion about how these fires are often fought and how the Federal Government frequently will go on private land and set a fire without permission to backburn. That happens all the time. In fact, in the Barry Point Fire down in Lake County, they set fire on private timber land as a backburn while the owners of the property were putting out spot fires down in the canyon. I drove down there afterwards. They are darn lucky to have come out alive. There was nobody sentenced under the terrorism act there. Oh, heck no. It is the government. They weren't sentenced. Nobody was charged. Oh, it just happened. Now, fires are tough to fight. I have great respect for firefighters. There are always two sides on how these fires get fought. But I can tell you, a few years back in Harney County, because I went and held a meeting out there right as the fire was being put out, that the fire crews came in, went on private ground, lit a backfire on private ground, behind a fence line, that then burned out the farmer's fence, the rancher's fence, and burned all the way over and down into a canyon where there was a wetland, which would have been the natural break to stop the fire from the other side. You see, they never needed to burn that land. These things happen in the course of fighting fire. It doesn't mean they are right. But rare is it that somebody ends up 5 years in prison. Let me tell you what the senior judge said when he sentenced the Hammonds the first time, Judge Michael Hogan, senior Federal judge, highly respected in Oregon. He sentenced Dwight Hammond to 3 months and Steve to a year. There were different offenses here. He said: ``I am not going to apply the mandatory minimum because, to me, to do so, under the Eighth Amendment, would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here.'' The Judge went on to say: ``And with regard to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, this sort of conduct would not have been conduct intended under the statute. ``When you ask, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles, and there are homes up the ravines, it might apply. Out in the wilderness here, I don't think that is what the Congress intended. ``In addition, it just would not meet any idea I have of justice proportionality. It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience, to me.'' Senior Judge Mike Hogan, when he did the original sentencing. But, you see, under this 1996 law under which they were charged and convicted, it turns out he had no judicial leeway. He could not mete out a sentence that was proportionate to what the crime was. So yesterday, Dwight and Steve went to prison again. Dwight will be 73 when he gets out. Steve will be about 50. Meanwhile, in Harney County, on the ranch, Susie will continue to try and survive; 6,000-acre ranch, she needs grazing permits to make this happen. It would be a cruel and unjust act, by the way, if access to those grazing permits that allow that ranch to work were not extended. What possible good could come out of bankrupting a grandmother that was trying to keep a ranch together, while the husband sits in prison, her son sits in prison? What possible good? They will serve their sentences. There is nothing, short of clemency that only the President can offer, that we can do. But we can change that law, and we should, so that nobody ever is locked in like that for a situation like this, where a senior judge, literally, on his final day on the bench, says this goes too far, it goes too far. They appealed that, by the way, and lost. But I believe that the judge was right. We have to listen to the people. We have to understand why events like this are taking place in our communities. They are taking place in cities. We have witnessed that, and we try and get our heads around it. There are more people from the cities, so there are more Members from the cities. There aren't many of us that represent these vast, wide- open, incredibly beautiful, harsh districts like the one I do. The people there love the land. It was the ranchers who came up with the concept of the cooperative management. It was the ranchers who loved Steens Mountain that know that for them to survive they have to take care of the range. They are good people. Their sons and daughters, by a higher proportion, fight in our wars and die, and I have been to their funerals. So to my friends across eastern Oregon, I will always fight for you. But we have to understand there is a time and a way. Hopefully the country through this understands we have a real problem in America: how we manage our lands and how we are losing them. It is not like we haven't tried here, Mr. Speaker. Year after year we pass bipartisan legislation to provide more active management on our forests so we don't lose them all to fire, and we are losing them all to fire. We are losing firefighters' lives, homes, and watersheds-- great resources of the West. Teddy Roosevelt would role over in his grave. He created this wildlife refuge in 1908. There were some bad actors there in the 1980s, by the way. They were very aggressive running the refuge, basically threatening eminent domain and other things that took ranches. It was bad. That lasted for at least a decade or more. It has gotten better though. It is not perfect. There is a much better relationship, and the refuge and the ranchers work closer together. In fact, during this fire in 2012, the refuge actually opened itself up to the ranchers for hay and feed because theirs was burned out because of this big fire. So there was a better spirit there. But there are still these problems: the threat of waters of the U.S. shutting down stock ponds and irrigation canals and a way of life, the threat of fire every year that seems to not be battled right and just gets away, and no one is really held accountable; the continued restriction on the lives of the men and women who, for generations, have worked hard in a tough environment. It has just gone too far. It is hurtful. I hope people understand how serious this is felt and how heartfelt this is by those who pay their taxes and try and live by the law and do the right things and how oppressed they feel by the government that they elect and the government they certainly don't elect, and how much they will always defend the flag and the country, and their sons and daughters would go to war, some will not come back--and they have not from this area. There is a better solution here. The President needs to back off on the monument. The BLM needs to make sure Susie Hammond isn't pushed into bankruptcy and has her ranch taken by the government and added to those that have been. We need to be better at hearing people from all walks of life and all regions of our country and understanding this anger that is out there and what we can do to bring about correct change and peaceful resolution. It is not too late. We can do this. It is a great country. We have the processes to do it right. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2583) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for greater transparency and efficiency in the procedures followed by the Federal Communications Commission, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record on the bill.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today marks the third time in 4 years that a variation of the FCC Process Reform Act has come to the floor for a vote. This is a sign of how seriously in need of reform the FCC's procedures are and how seriously I, and the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, take the responsibility of helping put these reforms in place. This bill is the product of a multiyear, bipartisan legislative process, bringing us to a place where we can at least begin to create a framework for more transparent and predictable rulemakings at the Federal Communications Commission. There are few other industries that have shown such high levels of innovation and investment as the communications and technology sector. Think of the developments in smartphones alone over the past few years, Mr. Speaker. The only way to guarantee that this continues is to make sure that the agency that regulates the industry is accountable and transparent so that the regulatory tangles do not impede the steady march of new and exciting innovations and offerings. The Subcommittee on Communications and Technology has spent a great deal of time on agency reform. In fact, tomorrow we will have the entire FCC before our committee once again. We have come to a consensus on how we can best improve the processes at the Federal Communications Commission without tying the agency's hands unnecessarily. It has been a focus of our work. Our bipartisan compromise requires that the FCC undertake a rulemaking to adopt minimum time periods for comments and to adopt rules that prevent the introduction of large amounts of data--we call those data dumps, where enormous amounts of information come in at the last minute and nobody has a chance to understand what is in it or comment effectively on it, sometimes even catching commissioners by surprise--at the very end of a comment period. The new Commission rules must put into place specific deadlines and timeframes for agency decisions or action on different types of filings before the agency. I know all too well what those deadlines and delays can be. My wife and I were broadcasters for more than two decades. We actually had applications sit at the FCC for nearly 10 years without any action. Finally, they were acted upon, and we were given 30 days to implement them. This isn't acceptable. There must be predictability and certainty for those who rely on the FCC to make decisions central to their businesses. In addition to the rulemaking, the FCC must also conduct an inquiry into more complex issues, giving them flexibility in deciding whether and how to implement the reforms. We aren't looking to, again, hamstring this agency. We simply are providing them with goals and allowing them to determine the best way to achieve them. That is our job as the oversight committee over an agency. Process reform is not about the actions of one party and it is not about the actions of one chairman. This is about putting rules into place that will carry over from one administration to the next, one party to the next, one chairman to the next, creating consistency and certainty for the many that are subject to the Commission's rules. I believe there must be some kind of accountability for our independent agencies and the decisions that they make. After all, it is the public's business that they are conducting. While there is still much work needed to be done on reforming the procedures at this sometimes broken agency, this bill represents a vital first step in that process. The communications industry and, more importantly, the American people, deserve a transparent and accountable Federal agency, no matter who is in charge. For the second consecutive Congress, I am proud to bring this bipartisan work to the House floor. I thank my Democratic colleague, Ranking Member Pallone, who I know will speak on this bill; Ranking Member Eshoo, who has been a terrific partner as we have worked on this; Representatives Matsui, Clarke, and Loebsack for their contributions to this bill; and staff on both sides of the aisle, David Redl, Grace Koh, Kelsey Guyselman, Gene Fullano, David Goldman, Lori Maarbjerg, and David Grossman, for their hard work. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey and his staff for the great work on this legislation. I also meant to thank Mr. Kinzinger from Illinois as well, who has been very active on our subcommittee. He has done great work on this measure and some of its very important provisions. I left him out earlier today. I want to thank him as well. I also thank the staff and my colleagues. I urge passage in the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, again, I think this is a fine piece of work. I think it will result in the Federal Communications Commission being even better and more transparent as it conducts the public's business. I look forward to this bill moving on across the Chamber and to the Senate where, hopefully, this year they will take it up. So I ask for its approval. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from southern Oregon. I appreciate his support and that of my other colleagues in the Northwest and the chairman of the committee. I would urge adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this bipartisan amendment, which clarifies the eligibility of projects within national scenic areas under the nationally significant freight and highway project section of this legislation. I thank Representatives Jaime Herrera Beutler, Earl Blumenauer, and Garret Graves for cosponsoring this important amendment with me. I thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, Chairman Graves, and Ranking Member Holmes Norton for their support as well. Across the Nation, there are 12 national scenic areas in 8 States, including the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, which is the largest scenic area in the United States. This Federal overlay consists of 292,500 acres along 85 miles of the Columbia River in Oregon and Washington, encompassing 6 counties in 13 different communities and subjecting the area to unique land use development restrictions. Ninety percent of the scenic area is subject to strict land use and development restrictions, including 114,600 acres of special management area and 71,000 acres of national forestlands. While scenic areas like the Columbia Gorge provide tourist opportunities to thousands of visiting Americans from all across the country, this unique Federal involvement provides distinct challenges in promoting growth of the local economy while conserving natural beauty of the lands within the gorge. Transportation infrastructure is an essential component to efficiently serve the interests of both local residents and visitors to the scenic area. There is a strong need for regional transportation planning and improvement to major transportation elements. That would include things such as the Hood River interstate bridge and the Bridge of the Gods at Cascade Locks. Together these amount to 5.2 million bridge crossings each year and the transfer of $110 million in goods, but they are deteriorating and deficient, and they are in need of major improvements. In fact, one of the bridges, the Hood River interstate bridge, was recently hit by a barge, which has caused some consternation about the damage that may have occurred there. Clarifying the eligibility of the scenic areas throughout the Nation for transportation grant funding would help ensure that these areas are eligible for meaningful funding opportunities to enhance infrastructure within these unique federally managed areas. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment to ensure that federally designated scenic areas like the Columbia River Gorge are eligible for these funds. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), the coauthor of this amendment, for his comments.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 27 veterans from Oregon who will be visiting their memorial this Saturday in Washington, D.C. through Honor Flight of Oregon. Ten of these veterans served over 70 years ago in World War II, and 17 served in the Korean War. Veterans of both wars will see the memorials dedicated to their service here in Washington. On behalf of a grateful state and country, we welcome these heroes to our nation's capital. The World War II veterans on this flight from Oregon are as follows: Henry Turner, Army; Marvin Worden, Army; William Carhart Jr, Army Air Force; Edward Nicolaides, Marines; William Ackermann Jr, Navy; Clement K. Hyer, Navy; John T. Hyer, Navy; Stuart Richardson, Navy; Floyd Schrock, Navy; Vincent Stone, Navy. The Korean War veterans on this flight from Oregon are as follows: James Bartlett, Air Force; Robert Burton, Air Force; Patricia Moyer, Air Force; Joseph Violette, Air Force; Raymond Coburn, Army; Henry Faria, Army; Clifford Friesen, Army; Wilferd Krein, Army; William Gemmet, Marines, James Aday, Navy; John Ames, Navy; Darrell Davis, Navy; Charles Johnson, Navy; James McDonald, Navy; Allen Nash, Navy; Paul Standring, Navy; Raold Stroup, Navy. These 27 heroes join the estimated 20,000-25,000 veterans who will travel to Washington D.C. from their home states in 2015, adding to the 138,800 veterans who have been honored through the Honor Flight Network of volunteers nationwide since 2005. Mr. Speaker, each of us is humbled by the courage of these brave Americans who put themselves in harm's way for our country and way of life. As a nation, we can never fully repay the debt of gratitude owed to them for their honor, commitment, and sacrifice in defense of the freedoms we have today. My colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their exemplary dedication and service to this great country.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my very good friend, Paulette Pyle, for her many years advocating for Oregon's farmers, ranchers and foresters. Paulette is retiring from Oregonians for Food and Shelter where she delivered 35 years of historic service as their Director of Grassroots, and is one of the most respected and expert advocates in the country in her field. Since many of my colleagues call Paulette a dear friend, I'd like to pay tribute to her numerous contributions to Oregon and its natural resource industries. Born in Sioux City, Iowa and raised on a wheat and dairy operation near Cottonwood, Idaho, agriculture has always been close to Paulette's heart. As she has worked on behalf of Oregon's farmers for over three decades, Paulette became well known statewide for the passion for and commitment to the farm, ranch and timber families she worked for. In 1972, after nearly a decade working in health care, Paulette made her first professional foray into politics, serving as district staff for Senator Steve Symms of Idaho during his time in the U.S. House. She campaigned her way from Idaho to Oregon. A tenacious and well-liked go- getter from the start, she was known to go door to door on campaigns with her twin baby girls--one on each hip. Paulette took her grassroots experience to the newly formed Oregonians for Food and Shelter in 1980. Over the next 35 years, she became a beloved and relied upon household name for Oregon's farmers, ranchers and foresters as well as a highly regarded advocate around the state capitol and in the halls of Congress. In that role, Paulette became an integral part of Oregon's natural resources community, tying together sometimes differing groups towards a common goal. If there was an issue heating up that affected the industry, you knew you'd find Paulette leading the charge to ensure progress. Guided by what she knew was right and in the best interest of Oregon, Paulette knew how to get things done. At times when others may have been turned off by a defeat, Paulette just got creative. And this approach often led to success. One example of Paulette's creative, can-do disposition is the time Paulette worked tirelessly to move a pesticide bill through the legislature, only to have the Governor veto it. Unwilling to give up on the effort, Paulette went to work again, getting the language attached to a bill referring a decision on a light rail project to the voters--a legislative vehicle that the Governor was eager to see approved. Left with a choice between letting the bill move forward with Paulette's language included, or vetoing his own legislative priority, the Governor signed the bill into law. Paulette scored a win on behalf of family farmers, and voters went on to vote down the Governor's project. This tenacity and skill served Paulette well at the federal level too. Her grassroots efforts were integral as we worked to turn the heat up on the Senate and push the last major federal forest policy reform to become law, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, across the finish line. State legislators and members of Congress weren't the only ones leaning on Paulette for advice and assistance. President George W. Bush became fast friends with Paulette, and made sure she was included in any ranching, farming or forestry discussion affecting Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. The president's team would call me before one of his many visits to Oregon during his presidency to confirm that I had not forgotten to make sure Paulette would be available to join ``43'' when he visited our family farmers, ranchers and foresters. The Bush White House team soon learned that I did not need a reminder to include Paulette as I'd tell them she was always first on my call list. In addition to Paulette's significant professional achievements, it is important to note that an even higher priority for her is her cherished family and the faith that guides her daily. Paulette and her husband Ken raised six outstanding children, who in turn are raising their 16 grandchildren. Paulette has led her family by love and Christian example, and this is very clear to all who know her. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, please join me in recognizing and thanking my good friend, Paulette Pyle, for her years of leadership and tremendous dedication on behalf of the natural resource industry. Oregon's farmers, ranchers and foresters have benefited in countless ways over the past three and a half decades thanks to Paulette. I wish Paulette and Ken the best for many years of good health and happiness in retirement and the years ahead. She will forever remain a very special friend.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 27 World War II veterans from Oregon who will be visiting their memorial this Saturday in Washington, D.C. through Honor Flight of Oregon. On behalf of a grateful state and country, we welcome these heroes to our nation's capital. The veterans on this flight from Oregon are as follows: Robert E. Corey, Army, Robert P. Hamilton, Army; Edward N. Kaser Jr., Army; Fred A. Puckett, Army; Harold V. Werner, Army; Victor T. Zeller, Army; Harold F. Barger, Army Air Forces; Perry L. Peterson, Army Air Forces; Edgar F. Pomeroy, Army Air Forces; John L. Weakland, Army Air Forces; Fred H. Thornberg, Coast Guard; James O. Catt, Navy; Charles W. Filipowicz, Navy; Frederick L. Hisaw, Navy; John F. Martin Jr., Navy; Alva Q. Mizer, Navy; Marshall E. Scott, Navy; John F. Spring, Navy; Joseph M. Stone, Navy; Martin G. Tonissen, Navy; Dean M. Wilcox, Navy; Donald A. Yeamans, Navy; Mary R. Yeamans, Navy; S. Tony Zarbano, Navy; Jack R. Merkle, Marine Corps; Charles F. Paul, Marine Corps; and William E. Robinson, Marine Corps. These 27 heroes join the estimated 20,000-25,000 veterans who will travel to Washington DC from their home states in 2015, adding to the 138,800 veterans who have been honored through the Honor Flight Network of volunteers nationwide since 2005. I would also like to recognize the twelve escorts traveling on this trip who have also served our country: Steven N. Barger, Army; William L. Daniels, Army; Lloyd Frasier, Army; Anthony L. Zarbano, Army; John D. Filipowicz, Coast Guard; Aaron L. Tonissen, Coast Guard; Jeffrey H. Weakland, Marine Corps; Edwin A. Montgomery, National Guard; Allan A. Auge, Navy; Robert L. Hamilton, Navy; Daniel M. Lowe, Navy; and Robert E. Walker, Navy. Mr. Speaker, each of us is humbled by the courage of these brave Americans who put themselves in harm's way for our country and way of life. As a nation, we can never fully repay the debt of gratitude owed to them for their honor, commitment, and sacrifice in defense of the freedoms we have today. My colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their exemplary dedication and service to this great country.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 50 World War II veterans from Oregon who will be visiting their memorial today in Washington, D.C. through Honor Flight of Oregon. On behalf of a grateful state and country, we welcome these heroes to the nation's capital. The veterans on this flight from Oregon are as follows: Robert Bortvedt, Army; Eldon Dyer, Army; John Fellas, Army; Donald Ford, Army; RD, Sr. Fortner, Army; Clyde Harrop, Army; Donald Kiser, Army; Everett Lee, Army; Patrick O'Brien, Army; Lawrence Torrey, Army; Donald Bean, Army Air Forces; Donald Cresap, Army Air Forces; Harold Goff, Army Air Forces; Lawrence Kissinger, Army Air Forces; Francis Marvel, Army Air Forces; Raymond Morgan, Army Air Forces; Leo Morstad, Army Air Forces; James Riopelle, Army Air Forces; James Sperling, Coast Guard; Stanley Wheeler, Coast Guard; Harold Englet, Merchant Marines; Charles Kemph, Merchant Marines/Army; Kenneth Anderson, Navy; William Birkeland, Navy; Douglas Carer, Navy; Thomas Christman, Navy; Raynold Deluca Sr., Navy; Rupert Fixott, Navy; Donald Fowler, Navy; Ralph Grassmueck, Navy; Roland Halberg, Navy; Marvin Johnson, Navy; Robert Kahl, Navy; Kenneth Kerns, Navy; Harold Lay, Navy; Gerald Midbust, Navy; Clinton Peck, Navy; George Prusynski, Navy; Leo Schammel, Navy; Raymond Stahly, Navy; Earl Uptegrove, Navy; Murray Watts, Navy; Lyle Wescott, Navy; Merrill Williams, Navy; Robert Zimmerman, Navy; Joe Bruer, Marine Corps; Earle Costello, Marine Corps; Robert Miller, Marine Corps; Juanita Price, Marine Corps; and John Anderson, Navy Reserve. These 50 heroes join the estimated 20,000-25,000 veterans who will travel to Washington DC from their home states in 2015, adding to the 138,800 veterans who have been honored through the Honor Flight Network of volunteers nationwide since 2005. Mr. Speaker, each of us is humbled by the courage of these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who put themselves in harm's way for our country and way of life. As a nation, we can never fully repay the debt of gratitude owed to them for their honor, commitment, and sacrifice in defense of the freedoms we have today. My colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their exemplary dedication and service to this great country. I especially want to recognize and thank Dick Tobiason for his tireless work as president of Honor Flight of Oregon and trip leader Erik Tobiason for his efforts.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Thomas Griffin, a very intelligent, talented, and motivated member of my staff who transitions this week from my office to begin law school next month at the University of Oregon. Hailing from Central Oregon, Thomas was born at Mountain View Hospital where his mom was a pharmacist. He was raised on a third generation family farm between Culver and Lake Billy Chinook and became involved in the family grass and vegetable seed company. Thomas graduated from Culver High School, where he was a state champion in football, student body president, and valedictorian of his class of 54. He was also involved in the FFA, rising to be President of the state organization in March of his senior year in high school. He spent the next year on the road, visiting more than 50 FFA chapters and facilitating agricultural leadership and awareness workshops for over 5,000 high school students. It was through FFA that Thomas made his first trip to Washington, D.C., and first met me during the state convention in La Grande in 2009. After his dedicated leadership as FFA state president, Thomas started college at Oregon State in 2009. He followed in the footsteps of his parents, both proud Beaver alums. He graduated in 2012 with a degree in environmental economics, policy and management, and a minor in agricultural business management. I originally hired Thomas as an intern in my office, and since then he has served in my office as a Legislative Correspondent and currently as a senior Legislative Assistant. When Thomas first applied for an internship, he was recommended to me by several top leaders in the agricultural community. Once he started, I quickly took note of Thomas's dedication, work ethic, and passion for serving constituents in Oregon's Second Congressional District. This led me to hire Thomas to work in my office full time after he graduated from Oregon State. In my office, he quickly acclimated to the multi-faceted job he was hired to tackle. Thomas has been assisting me primarily on issues related to federal agriculture, forestry, natural resources, and water policy. With 53 percent of the land in Oregon being owned and managed by the federal government, these issues are of critical importance to the economy and people in my congressional district. Thomas's good work and assistance helped me pass federal forestry reform legislation through the House of Representatives for the first time in nearly 10 years, in addition to several other pieces of legislation that were Oregon focused. As Thomas proved that he was capable of handling more responsibility in my office, he has since added other issue areas to his legislative portfolio including education, trade, energy, and financial services. I have been impressed as Thomas has approached these new responsibilities with a can-do attitude, demonstrating a high level of commitment and integrity. Thomas has my complete confidence in his abilities, something I hear echoed from my Chief of Staff and others that he works with. Now, Thomas is headed to the University of Oregon for law school. He plans to focus on environmental and business law to help ensure that our farmers, ranchers, and foresters can focus on what they do best: producing the best food, fiber, and fuel in the world. On a personal note, as a dedicated Oregon Duck myself, I am eager to see Thomas--a lifelong Oregon State Beaver--join our proud Duck community. Thomas will be sorely missed by me and my team, but we plan to stay in close touch and will enjoy seeing his successes down the road. With that, Mr. Speaker, please join me in wishing Thomas the best of luck as he heads West and ``Go Ducks!''

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) for yielding and for working with me on this amendment as well, which will assist our Klamath project farmers in the Klamath Basin. As you pointed out, there is a long history of water issues in this basin and there is much work to be done. Frankly, a basin-wide, long-term solution is what is most needed. While we are working toward that solution, these issues remain. In the interim, it is critical that we pass this amendment to simply formalize the rule of the Klamath project irrigators by giving them applicant status for ESA consultations. The Klamath project contractors have existing contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation, and they are directly affected by Reclamation's consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. In recent years, as you mentioned, the Klamath project contractors have provided input to the section 7 consultations through the invitation of the Klamath tribes. I would like to thank the Klamath tribes and especially Klamath Tribal Chairman Don Gentry for working with the project contractors through this process. So passing this amendment would only formalize the practice that has already been occurring and ensure the project contractors could continue this process in the future. To legislatively designate the project contractors as having the role of applicants would not change the substantive obligations of the Bureau of Reclamation under the ESA or the obligations of the wildlife agencies to prepare biological opinions. So I would ask my colleagues to join us in formalizing a process that has been sort of informal along the way, but inconsistent at times, and give the consistency there that is important to continue the discussions that are underway in the basin.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I would just say, as somebody who has been involved in these issues going back to 1999, I have worked with the tribes. I have worked with irrigators to prove fish passage and to help improve fish health. So I really take offense to the kind of language you are using here on the floor because we have done a lot of good to put fish screens in, to help improve the survivability of the suckers, to put more water aside. We have done a lot of good things. So I welcome you to this House, and I welcome you to work with us on these issues, but I have to tell you it is a little offensive in your comments.

Mr. WALDEN. If the gentleman will yield, I am just saying there is a better way to have this discussion than hurling the kind of language you are hurling around, because a lot of us have worked, both sides, bipartisan, and a lot of work. I open the door to have those conversations with you as well.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Fred Upton, and Diana DeGette for their great bipartisan work. And we all put a shoulder to the wheel here to get this done. This is really big, 21st Century Cures. All of us have known someone afflicted by deadly diseases. Most of us have seen people in our own families. My mother passed away as the result of ovarian cancer. My sister-in- law had brain cancer. I lost a son to a congenital heart defect. My mother-in-law had rheumatoid arthritis from a very early age. My stepmother died of a stroke. We are all affected. Investing in cures, investing in treatments, investing in innovation and doing it right here in America is the best step forward. This legislation would modernize the Nation's biomedical innovation infrastructure and streamline the process for how drugs and medical devices are approved in order to get new treatments to patients and get it to them faster. To do this, we solicited input from some of the best scientists in the world, including Dr. Brian Druker of OHSU, Oregon Health Sciences University, Knight Cancer Research Center, a true pioneer in the fight against cancer. This initiative would give hope to countless Oregonians. Like my friend Linda Sindt, a close friend in southern Oregon, she lost her husband Duane to pancreatic cancer. She said this legislation will put us on a path to improved survival for pancreatic cancer. Nancy Roach, a colon cancer advocate in my hometown of Hood River, praised the bill, saying, ``Investing in 21st century science by boosting funding for the NIH makes sense.'' Colton and Tiffany Allen are residents of Talent, Oregon. They said this bill will give hope, hope, to individuals like Colton, who struggles with ALS. We owe it to people like Linda, Nancy, Colton, Tiffany, to our families, to all Americans and literally people around the globe to pass this legislation, to tackle these diseases that have no treatment or cure, to develop new innovative treatments, provide better health technology, and ultimately bring hope and better lives for all.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the members of the committee on both sides, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, for their great work on this legislation. This is really, really important. My colleague from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) spoke eloquently about what our State faces and our rural communities face, and that is why this Resilient Federal Forests Act is so important to beginning to be a game changer, to getting us back into active management of our Federal forestlands, to reducing the threat of wildfire, the cost of wildfire, the destruction of wildfire, and the incredible pollution from wildfire. As we speak here today on the House floor, brave firefighters are still trying to contain the Corner Creek fire, which has already burned nearly 29,000 acres of forestland near Dayville, Oregon, in my district--29,000 acres already burned. And unfortunately, this fire season in the West has only just begun. Among the many strong provisions in this bill are streamlining planning, reducing frivolous lawsuits, and speeding up the pace of forest management. Several in particular are helpful to our great State of Oregon. For national forests in eastern Oregon, this legislation repeals the prohibition on harvesting trees over 21 inches in diameter. Now, there is no real ecological reason for this. It was a temporary measure put in place 20-some years ago, nearly. It remains today. It didn't make sense then, it doesn't make sense now, and it will be repealed. This flawed one-size-fits-all rule illustrates, I think, just how broken the Federal forest management has become. So it greatly limits the flexibility forest managers have to do what is right for the health and ecosystem of the forests to make them more resilient, more fire tolerant. This bill also includes legislation I wrote with my colleagues from Oregon, Representatives DeFazio and Kurt Schrader, pertaining to Oregon's unique O&C Lands. It will cut costs, increase timber harvests and revenue to local counties. The BLM is also directed to revise their flawed management plan proposals to consider the clear statutory mandate to manage these lands for sustainable timber production and revenue to the counties. Finally, one look at the fires around the West makes clear that the status quo simply is not working for our forests, for our communities, or for the environment. We need to do better. This Resilient Federal Forests Act will do that. It will bring better and healthier forests and healthier communities. I thank the committee for taking up this good piece of legislation and encourage my colleagues to approve it.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the spotted owl is covered by their planning process today in some measure because it certainly contributed to the downfall of our communities, absent this plan. Look, all we are asking for is time for people to have a better chance to review what this Federal agency, after 20 years, has finally come up with--1,500 pages. I think they should have a chance, as do my colleagues, including Mr. Schrader, a member of your party, supporting this amendment. So it is a bipartisan Oregon approach that I would hope my colleague from Maine would share that we need to do better managing America's Federal forests. Turn on the TV. They are going up in flames right now. I don't like that for the habitat. I don't like that for the communities. I don't like that for what the firefighters have to face. I think we can do better. Most observers in the State think we can do better, and I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.