Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. I want to thank my colleagues from Utah and Guam, as well as the chairwoman of the subcommittee, Grace Napolitano from California, and the ranking member, Tom McClintock from California, and their staffs for working with me and the folks from the city of Hermiston, Oregon, to move this bill through the committee process in a rather expedited way where it was unanimously approved and now awaits floor action today. As the author of the bill, I stand in strong support of H.R. 2741, which authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to work with the city in the planning, design, and construction of the city of Hermiston's new water recycling and reuse project. In short, this is one of those bills that is good for farmers and it is good for fish. It helps meet the Endangered Species Act, a requirement for a listed salmon species in the Umatilla River, and addresses long-term community growth in the process. It has strong local support from very diverse interests and is exactly the type of partnership and project that deserves investment from the Federal Government. The existing wastewater facilities in Hermiston are 30 years old; and after 30 years, those facilities have served the community well and outlived their usefulness. With new environmental requirements and needs, the community has come together with many parties to come up with this proposal, and this legislation will help move that forward with a nice cost share between the Federal Government at 25 percent and the local community at 75 percent. This project will achieve a list of objectives important to both the local community and Federal environmental obligations. First, it will enable the city to reliably meet new pollution reduction requirements for the next 20-plus years. Second, it will increase wastewater treatment capacity to match the growth in the region's economy and the human population. Third, 3,400 acre feet of top quality, class A water will return to the Umatilla River and provide additional protections for threatened salmon species. This is one of the key reasons that the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation support the legislation. I thank them for that and would like to enter into the Record their letter of support for H.R. 2741. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Pendleton, OR, July 15, 2009. Ed Brookshier, City Manager, City of Hermiston, Hermiston, OR. Dear Mr. Brookshier: the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed improvements to the Hermiston waste water treatment plant. We understand that in addition to upgrades at the plant itself this project includes moving the location of effluent discharge to the Umatilla River and a new discharge to the West Extension Irrigation District. We appreciate the City's coordination with us on this important project that will improve the water quality of the Umatilla River over time. As you know the CTUIR has treaty fishing rights in the Umatilla River. The Tribes value the health of Umatilla fisheries and the Umatilla River that is enjoyed by all residents of the Umatilla Basin. We are aware that Hermiston is working with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and other resource protection agencies to minimize negative impacts to the river and maximize the benefits of the project. We also understand that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has requested a priority pollutant scan of the facility's effluent and that the new discharge locations be characterized for toxic contaminants. We ask that you share the results of those studies with the Confederated Tribes so that we can advance our mutual interest in better understanding the conditions of the Umatilla River. We understand that the City of Hermiston is also seeking to obtain federal funding that might offset the costs of this substantial project. We support the City's efforts and hope your request will be successful. While the new summer discharge to the West Extension Irrigation District will result in a decrease in summer Umatilla River flows, the Tribes are working with Umatilla basin partners including the City of Hermiston to restore Umatilla River stream flows to natural levels. The CTUIR appreciates your consultation with us and looks forward to the successful completion of the improvements to Hermiston's waste water treatment plant. Sincerely, Antone C. Minthorn, Chairman, Board of Trustees. The final component of the project is the drought-resistant water delivery of recycled water to the diverse agriculture community in the west extension irrigation district. This water will supplement current allocations. We all know a little extra water in a dry climate can help our farmers and their crops in a big way. The proposed project will comply with all applicable laws and regulations, and the city has already completed the required supporting environmental and biological assessments. The Federal partnership in the local investment will be of enormous assistance as the project moves forward from drawing board to construction. I thank you for your support and the opportunity to speak in favor of H.R. 2741, and I look forward to continuing to work with you and the city of Hermiston to ensure that this project of great importance becomes a reality.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Brad Hicks, the president and CEO of the Chamber of Medford/Jackson County headquartered in Medford, Oregon. Brad has deep and enduring roots in southern Oregon that have grounded his personal and professional life in special ways. He treasures the beautiful Rogue Valley in which he was raised and where he and his lovely wife, Kimberly, have chosen to raise their son, Jonathan. Brad's love of southern Oregon and his steadfast belief in its bright future have driven his chamber career along a steady path of unselfish service to the Rogue Valley. Brad grew up in Grants Pass, Oregon and graduated with a degree in political science from Southern Oregon State College, now known as Southern Oregon University. After public service as an aide to members of the state legislature and the U.S. Congress, Brad returned home to southern Oregon in 1993 where he began his chamber management career as membership director of the Chamber of Medford/Jackson County. Brad was mentored by a chamber legend, Bill Haas, who taught him the essentials of running an effective chamber. In 1994 Brad became advertising sales director, and then marketing director in 1995, serving in that capacity until being selected to his current position when Bill Haas retired at the end of 1999. Under Brad's leadership as president and CEO, the Chamber of Medford/ Jackson County has grown to be the largest chamber in Oregon, far surpassing the membership of chambers in much larger communities. The Chamber of Medford/Jackson County has not only grown significantly, it has been recognized repeatedly for its effective service to the community. Theirs is the model that other chambers follow for membership growth, political involvement, and communications with the membership. Brad gives greatly of himself to his community and to his profession. He has served ably on a long list of local boards, commissions, and philanthropic endeavors. Brad has served on the United States Chamber of Commerce West Institute Board of Regents, the American Chamber of Commerce Executives Board of Directors, and the Northwest Chamber Leaders. Brad is a past president of the Oregon State Chamber of Commerce, and was named that organization's Chamber Executive of the Year in 2006. Brad was also recently awarded the 2008 Western Association of Chamber Executives' ``Executive of the Year'' award. Madam Speaker, Brad Hicks is an impactful leader who makes a difference in his community. He brings considerable skills and experience to his service to others and he never rests in his constant personal and professional growth. However, it is Brad's latest accomplishment that compels me to address this body today. Through years of hard work and dedication, Brad recently joined a very elite group of chamber executives when he achieved the status of certified chamber executive, or CCE as it is known in the chamber profession. In the past 38 years, fewer than 460 chamber executives have achieved the coveted CCE level. The CCE program is designed to assess a senior manager's knowledge of the four core chamber management areas: management, planning and development, membership, communications, and operations. The CCE earned by Brad is a national recognition of his commitment to his profession, his dedication to managerial and leadership excellence, and his leadership in state, regional, and national chamber professional associations. I value what Brad has accomplished and his contribution to his community. I invite each of you today to join me in thanking Brad Hicks for his service and in congratulating him on achieving the rare accomplishment of certified chamber executive.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, this really ought to be called Jake's Law, after 3-year-old Jake Hurley of Wilsonville, Oregon. In February, before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Jake's father, Peter, testified about how Jake contracted salmonella from eating peanut butter products from Peanut Corporation of America in Georgia. In January, Jake became sick. His doctors asked his parents, what does he like to eat? They recommended some food products. As it turned out, those very food products in their home were contaminated with salmonella that came about because of PCA. So when Stewart Parnell, the PCA president, testified before our Oversight Committee, I asked him, Would you like to sample some of the products that you sent out to little kids like Jake and other Americans to eat? His response? He took the Fifth Amendment. Thankfully, Jake recovered. But nine people died from the outbreak, and at least 691 people, half of them children, were sickened. If PCA had to follow a law like this that would require a fully- functioning food safety plan at food production facilities, traceability of the food chain, increased inspection and recall authority from FDA, there is a good chance that the salmonella outbreak could have been avoided and Jake and hundreds of others never would have been poisoned. Because of Jake's story and others like it we uncovered in bipartisan O&I food safety hearings since 2007, we now have a bipartisan piece of legislation here to pass the House of Representatives; and I urge your support for it, for the food safety of our country and the citizens that live here.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I was a small business owner for 21 years. There is no question that it's time to reform the health care system, but a government takeover is not the solution. Putting a government bureaucrat between your family and your doctor is not the solution, and losing the health plan you have today is not a solution. Yet the Democrats' bill would do just that. It puts a bureaucrat between you and your doctor. It doesn't have real reform. According to independent analysis, two out of three Americans won't be able to keep their plans, and it does nothing to bring down the costs. In fact, it drives up the deficit by over $239 billion. Meanwhile, if you're out in places like Oregon, rural Oregon, the CEO of Asante Health System, Roy Vinyard, in southern Oregon, said the government option under the Democrats' plan would be the death knell for hospitals since it pays Medicare rates. Currently, Medicare only pays 76 percent of their hospital's costs, and yet 52 percent of their patients are on Medicare. If the percentage of Medicare-like payments increases to 75 percent of their patients, the hospital will have to close its doors. So that plan does nothing to rein in costs. It does nothing to keep the doors open. We need to reform health care, but let's do it in a way that puts patients first and that doesn't destroy small business.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, consistent with the House Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, to the best of my knowledge the requests I have detailed below are (1) not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; and (2) not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark. As required by earmark standards adopted by the House Republican Conference, I submit the following information on projects I requested and that were included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 3326). Account: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army Project Name: Brain Safety Net Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: University of Oregon, 103 Johnson Hall, Eugene, OR 97403 Project Location: Eugene, Oregon Description of Project: H.R. 3326 appropriates $3,000,000 for the Brain Safety Net project. According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used to help develop and optimize evidence-based treatments of soldiers and civilians suffering from amputations, traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and neurological disorders such as epilepsy. According to the requester, this will be a valuable use of taxpayer funds because it has the potential to improve the lives of many Oregonians including veterans injured during service in Iraq and Afghanistan. An individual's ability to effectively use a prosthetic device or manage the consequences of a traumatic brain injury means a higher quality of life and better opportunities for employment. Account: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army Project Name: ONAMI Miniaturized Tactical Energy Systems Development Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon State University/ University of Oregon/Portland State University/Oregon Nanosciences and Microtechnologies Institute, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 Project Location: Corvallis, OR; Eugene, OR; Portland, OR; Corvallis, OR Description of Project: H.R. 3326 appropriates $2,500,000 for ONAMI Miniaturized Tactical Energy Systems Development. According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used to support the development of miniaturized tactical energy systems for a wide range of military and subsequent commercial applications. According to the requesting entity, this will be a valuable use of taxpayer funds because Miniature Tactical Energy Systems address the growing problems of providing portable power (for tri-generation: electricity, heating and cooling) for forward-deployed Army forces. Account: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy Project Name: ONAMI Nanoelectronics, Nanometrology and Nanobiotechnology Initiative Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Portland State University; Oregon State University; University of Oregon; Oregon Nanosciences and Microtechnologies Institute, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97207 Project Location: Portland, OR; Corvallis, OR; Eugene, OR; Corvallis, OR Description of Project: H.R. 3326 appropriates $2,500,000 for the ONAMI Nanoelectronics, Nanometrology and Nanobiotechnology (N31) Initiative. According to the requesting entity, this project would support collaborative research to generate new applications such as nanoelectronic devices to address the end of Moore's Law scaling, advanced solar cells, nanoscale chemical imaging for catalysis improvements in areas such as bioremediation and ethanol production, nanoscale biosensors for point-of-care health management, and biological cell imaging and measurement capabilities. According to the requesting entity, this will be a valuable use of taxpayer funds because nanoelectronics and nanomaterial-based sensors (electrical, magnetic, optical, thermal, biochemical) are critical developments for high-performance electronics and battle theater intelligence, but cannot be successfully deployed without commensurate advances in measurement and materials characterization methods (imaging, chemical analysis) at the nanometer scale. Account: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide Project Name: Northwest Manufacturing Initiative Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Manufacturing 21 Coalition, 1100 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1425, Portland, OR 97204 Project Location: Portland, Oregon Description of Project: H.R. 3326 appropriates $2,500,000 for the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative. According to the requesting entity, funds for this project would improve the performance of manufacturing companies and the products they create as part of the defense logistics pipeline. According to the requester, this will be a valuable use of taxpayer funds because it is part of a long-term investment strategy designed by industry leaders to concentrate federal, state, public and private resources to serve the needs of the Department of Defense by building the capacity of an entire region's manufacturing cluster to respond to immediate and long-term national needs. Account: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force Project Name: ONAMI Safer Nanomaterials and Nanomanufacturing Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: University of Oregon/ Oregon State University/Portland State University/Oregon Nanosciences and Microtechnologies Institute, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 Project Location: Eugene, OR; Corvallis, OR; Portland, OR; Corvallis, OR Description of Project: H.R. 3326 appropriates $2,000,000 for ONAMI Safer Nanomaterials and Nanomanufacturing. According to the requesting entity, this project would use proactive strategies to develop nanomaterials and nanomanufacturing methods which are inherently safer and not detrimental to the environment or health; this directly impacts the Department of Defense's need for high-performance materials. According to the requester, this will be a valuable use of taxpayer funds because the application of this research facilitates application of nanomaterials and manufacturing in important defense technologies including energy production and storage, nanoelectronics and nanophotonics, medical diagnostics and therapeutics, drinking water purification and environmental monitoring and remediation systems. Additionally, nanomaterials are the key to higher performance aircraft structural materials, coatings, fuel systems and electronics.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, consistent with the House Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, to the best of my knowledge the requests I have detailed below are (1) not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; and (2) not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark. As required by earmark standards adopted by the House Republican Conference, I submit the following information on projects I requested and that were included in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 3293). Account: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)--Health Facilities and Services Project Name: County of Hood River, OR for facilities and equipment Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Hood River County, 601 State Street, Hood River, Oregon 97031 Project Location: Hood River County, Oregon Description of Project: H.R. 3293 appropriates $150,000 for the County of Hood River, OR for facilities and equipment. According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used to build a health care facility that integrates public health, migrant health, mental health and primary care. According to the requester, this will be a valuable use of taxpayer funds because it would bring health care services to a community that currently has no medical or dental providers. Account: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)--Health Facilities and Services Project Name: Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls, OR for purchase of equipment Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon Institute of Technology, 3201 Campus Drive, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601 Project Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon and Portland, Oregon Description of Project: H.R. 3293 appropriates $250,000 for the Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls, OR for purchase of equipment. According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used to purchase clinical laboratory science equipment for use at the existing clinical lab science program in Portland and the new program on the Klamath Falls campus. According to Oregon Institute of Technology, this will be a valuable use of taxpayer funds because expanding this program will help meet the projected need for clinical lab scientists in the next decade. Account: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)--Health Facilities and Services Project Name: Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls, OR for purchase of equipment Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon Institute of Technology, 3201 Campus Drive, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601 Project Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon Description of Project: H.R. 3293 appropriates $100,000 for the Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls, OR for purchase of equipment. According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used to incorporate medical imaging archiving systems into the curriculum of five different medical imaging programs. According to Oregon Institute of Technology, this will be a valuable use of taxpayer funds because in order to facilitate the adoption and utilization of electronic medical records (EMRs), it is necessary to educate students in health professions programs on all aspects of EMRs, including Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS). These funds will provide future workers the ability to fully maximize the potential of EMRs. Account: Employment and Training Administration (ETA)--Training & Employment Services (TES) Project Name: Columbia Gorge Community College, The Dalles, OR to develop a renewable energy training program, including purchase of equipment Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Columbia Gorge Community College, 400 East Scenic Drive, The Dalles, Oregon 97058 Project Location: The Dalles, Oregon Description of Project: H.R. 3293 appropriates $350,000 for the Columbia Gorge Community College, The Dalles, OR to maintain and expand a renewable energy training program, including purchase of equipment. According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used to expand the program to ensure relevance to changing industry demands and continue to meet the regional demand for wind turbine technicians. According to Columbia Gorge Community College, this will be a valuable use of taxpayer funds because funds would produce a skilled labor force for a growing industry while also reducing national dependence on imported oil.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, consistent with the House Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, to the best of my knowledge the requests I have detailed below are (1) not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; and (2) not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark. As required by earmark standards adopted by the House Republican Conference, I submit the following information on projects I requested and that were included in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 3288). Account: Federal lands (Public Lands Highways) Project Name: Highway 140, Lake County, OR Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon Department of Transportation, 355 Capitol Street NE., Room 135 Salem, OR 97301 Project Location: Lake County, Oregon Description of Project: H.R. 3288 appropriates $1,250,000 for the Highway 140 (Lake County, OR) project. According to the requesting entity, funding would be combined with other state and federal funds to complete a project that will straighten an existing sharp and dangerous curve on Highway 140, Warner Highway, in Lake County, Oregon. According to the Oregon Department of Transportation, this is a valuable use of taxpayer funds because it will improve safety and eliminate existing vehicle length restrictions on Highway 140. Account: Surface Transportation Priorities Project Name: Bear Creek Greenway Crossing at Barnett Road (Medford, OR) Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: City of Medford, 411 West 8th St. Modular Building, Medford, OR 97501 Project Location: Medford, Oregon Description of Project: H.R. 3288 appropriates $500,000 for the Bear Creek Greenway Crossing at Barnett Road (Medford, OR) project. According to the requestor, funds would be used for a grade-separated crossing of the Bear Creek Greenway Trail at Barnett Road. According to the City of Medford, this is a valuable use of taxpayer funds because it will improve safety at the Bear Creek Greenway Crossing.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. I thank my colleague from Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today also in support of this legislation. I think it's a good bill because I think hydroelectric power is a good thing for our country, and when we're concerned about getting renewable energy online, there's probably nothing better than hydropower for that. Unfortunately, in the cap-and-tax bill that was passed by this House over my objection and over the objection of the gentleman from Illinois, there is a provision on page 19, line 12, sub 3, that says, The hydroelectric project installed on the dam is operated so that the water surface elevation at any given location and time that would have occurred in the absence of the hydroelectric project is maintained. Now, I share this language with you because the gentleman from Illinois, my friend, talked about the 404,000 watts or megawatts, whatever it is--I didn't jot down the exact amount--would be produced as hydroelectric power and, therefore, renewable energy and create new jobs. My concern is this: that hydropower is being added after this legislation is moving forward. Should the cap-and-tax bill become law, that hydropower, according to this language, would not be considered as renewable energy for purposes of Illinois meeting the new Federal standard on renewable energy. Because in consultation with two civil engineers I've spoken with who operate hydro projects--many of them and large-scale hydro projects-- when I shared this language with them about maintaining the surface elevation at any location in time, they laughed. They said you can't operate a hydro system and not affect the water behind the dam in some way at some point. And so to disqualify the new hydro--like the gentleman from Illinois is trying to get here--makes no sense to me. Either hydropower is renewable or it's not. Now, there is another provision in this bill, the cap-and-tax bill, that said hydro that came online after 1988 is renewable but hydro before 1988 is not. Now, you have got water flowing down a river. You've got multiple dams along the way with hydro generation facilities. It's the same water. It just depends on what year the dam was built whether or not that hydropower is considered renewable or not. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Nor do the provisions in the cap-and-tax bill that said, if woody biomass off a Federal forest comes off of a late successional stand, you can't count the burning of that to produce green energy as renewable energy, but if it came off of a severely damaged tree, it is, although there is no definition for that. And if any woody biomass comes off private, county, State lands, it's all considered renewable energy when it produces electricity when it's burned, but yet there is this restriction on Federal land. I share that with you because America's Federal forests are terrifically overstocked and subject to catastrophic fire.

Mr. WALDEN. We could create more real jobs cleaning up the forest in very depressed communities. I was just out in four counties in my district. I think two, maybe three, are now at over 20 percent unemployment. They have 70, 50 and 80 percent Federal land. This is the great forests of our country that are left to burn up. The woody biomass could be put into clean energy. There are firms willing to invest if they could get supply. Again, the cap-and-trade, cap-and-tax bill harms that effort. So I share the gentleman's support of this legislation to create and move forward on the hydro project. It's unfortunate if the cap-and-tax bill that passed the House becomes law that hydro will not be considered renewal. That doesn't make sense. And I hope that the Senate can correct this problem.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue this question of: Where are the jobs? The gentleman who spoke just before me is from Michigan, where their unemployment is upwards of 14 percent. Oregon's unemployment rate is now over 12.2 percent and is second only to Michigan. Our basic industries have been shut down. My part of the State, by Federal policy, prevents us from even harvesting burned dead trees in a timely manner from our Federal forest lands and accessing our resources. Now along comes legislation that says if you take woody biomass off Federal land and use it to make new, clean, efficient energy, if it comes up as certain types of stands, it doesn't count. It's not renewable. So the jobs that would go with the creation of that were really diminished or were taken away fully by the cap-and-tax legislation, which we know is going to cost 1 million or 2 million jobs in this great State of ours. I was out in John Day and Nyssa and Burns this weekend and Baker City. Everywhere I went at town meetings, the rooms were full, and people were asking, What are they doing to us in Washington? Where are the jobs?

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina. I represent a district that's 70,000 square miles. Over half of it is already under Federal ownership and control. I wouldn't necessarily say good management because it's also home to lots of issues involving poor forest management, catastrophic fires, lots of degradation of the habitat and lack of management over the years. One of the things that troubles me about this legislation is that we're going to spend potentially $700 million overall--I've heard figures as high as that-- to apparently buy 19 million acres of land perhaps. And if it is, indeed, those levels, all that land, when the government buys it, comes off the tax rolls. I have got communities with 20 percent unemployment where the government owns 70 percent of the counties. They've shut down activity on the forests, and the Federal Government is trying to shut down activity out on the range land and destroy things like cattle ranching and some of the great economic ways of the West. This legislation comes along and apparently is going to have us borrow another $700 million from somebody--probably the Chinese or whatever government decides they want to buy more of our debt, $700 million, almost $1 billion--so that we can go acquire more land as a government and take it off the tax rolls to deal with this issue. I just find it really disturbing. You are going to put a lot of people out of work in the rural West. This is not well-thought-out legislation. But speaking to the rule, we seem in this Congress, under Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat leadership, to have gone into not just tax-and-spend but gag-and-spend. I'll be asking soon to bring up a privileged resolution that I brought to this floor yesterday to allow us the opportunity to offer up amendments.

Mr. WALDEN. To be able to offer up amendments on appropriations bills as historically Members of this House were always able to do until just recently when we have seen a historic and unprecedented gagging of Members of the Republican Party by Members of the Democratic Party when we have tried to offer up alternatives, positive alternatives, suggestions, ways to protect freedom of speech and freedom of religion and to cut back on this outrageous deficit spending. I guess those must be tough votes for the majority. They don't want to take them because they won't even allow our amendments to be debated on this House floor and considered. So I'm sorry we have gotten into the gag-and-spend rules-making process around here.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, Madam Speaker, I do.

Mr. WALDEN. I appreciate that, Madam Speaker. Rule IX is intended to allow a Member to raise questions which, and I quote, ``those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings; and those affecting the rights of Members, individually, in their representative capacity.'' So I pose the question, What is more fundamental to the rights of Members of this House than the ability to represent their constituents and affect legislation brought to this floor? The Democratic majority, under Speaker Pelosi, has unilaterally ended a 220-year tradition of allowing any Member to amend a spending bill. When my constituents sent me to Congress, they didn't send me here to just push the buttons using this card in a voting terminal. They wanted me to exercise all of the abilities granted to a Member of Congress. And the rule which this House passed yesterday by only a handful of votes, after arm twisting by the majority, denies me and every other Member the opportunity to fully represent their constituents. If that does not ``affect the rights of this House,'' if that does not affect its ``dignity and the integrity of its proceedings,'' if that does not affect my rights as a Representative, I don't know what does. For 220 years, we went along in this House with the opportunity to offer amendments. And sure, there were instances along the way where both parties probably restricted amendments that could be offered on appropriations bills, but not very often. This is unprecedented and historic in terms of the gagging of Members on both sides of the aisle. We had them on the floor yesterday trying to offer an amendment, a Democrat, and he too was turned down and upset. So I'm sure the Chair can find some technical reason why my resolution to protect free speech rights on the public's airwaves may not be in order. All we were trying to do is offer an amendment that had been offered up in 2007 and approved by over 300 Members of this House. When it was allowed to be considered and voted upon, it was approved by over 300 Members to protect the free speech rights of broadcasters, the citizens of this country as well. And instead, what we have now operating, I believe, affects the very rights of this House collectively, affects the dignity and integrity of its proceedings and affects the rights of its Members as described under rule IX individually in their representative capacity. That is why I brought this privileged resolution to the floor, because I believe, as a citizen of this country and a Member of this great institution, that our rights have been diminished, and that indeed the integrity of this very House is on the line. In fact, when you go to the Speaker's Web site, at least I think it is still up, she pledged an open debate and an opportunity for Members of Congress to be able to come to the floor and offer amendments, much like the chairwoman has done over time, and relishes that, as I do. It is part of what we do here, or what we were sent to do here. It is pretty hard to offer up alternatives to spending bills to reduce deficits and to put ideas into law when the Speaker's Rules Committee acts and shuts down our very opportunity to even bring amendment up for debate. Whether it passes or not will be up to the collective votes of this body. But we know that if we can never bring them up for debate, there will never be a vote. Now, maybe that's convenient to those who don't like to vote on difficult issues, or stand up for the free speech rights of broadcasters, whether they be religious broadcasters or those on the right or the left on talk radio, which is what my amendment would have sought to protect in the future. But I really believe that rule IX is intended to allow Members to raise questions affecting the rights of the House collectively, to discuss its safety, and that's not at issue here, but its dignity is. The integrity of its proceedings are. Those rights, these are fundamental to each of us, regardless of the label behind our name that designates our party. This is the one time we've had in this institution, to come forward with our ideas on how to control the bureaucracy, to offer an amendment that controls it. It's the only time I, as an individual, have that opportunity in the appropriations process, because I'm not a member of that committee, to represent my constituents. That's why I believe, under rule IX, my representative capacity is diminished, and that of many other Members in this Chamber, many who are watching right now. The public needs to understand this as well, that something has changed here, and it's not for the good. And I think it reflects badly on our proceedings. And I think it injures the integrity of this institution, let alone it's dignity. And that's why I make this parliamentary argument, that under rule IX, under rule IX, Members, it talks about collectively affecting the House. Tell me, when Members of the minority or majority come before the Rules Committee and seek--well, first of all, have to even go to the Rules Committee. That didn't use to occur on appropriations bills, did it? It didn't used to occur. Only rarely, maybe once or twice in a year.

Mr. WALDEN. I appreciate the gentlelady's counsel and I will attempt to do that. I was trying to do that here, and certainly I'm arguing in favor of the rules of this House being observed; that's why I argue about the integrity of its proceedings. In my view, proceedings have been shattered. Members of both parties are denied the opportunity, as our predecessors were allowed to have, to come to this floor and offer up amendments during the appropriations process. So I think my privileged resolution should be made in order, because I think my rights have been affected, and not in a good way. The rights of other Members are affected. I had more than one person on my amendment. And so individually, our representative capacity has been diminished. The voices I'm trying to represent are not allowed to be considered if I can't get my privileged resolution to be considered. All it did was ask for a vote on my amendment, that it be made in order, so that we could vote on it on the rule, which, oh, by the way, at this point, the way this process has been conducted, not only has the rule been passed, but also the bill has been passed. So it's kind of ironic now we'd have this argument about whether my privileged resolution was in order, which would have allowed me, had it been secured, it would have allowed me to have some additional representative capacity and be able to have a vote on the amendment or a vote on whether I could offer the amendment. I guess that's what would have occurred. So I posit this point: That under rule IX, we are allowed to raise questions about issues that affect the rights of the House collectively. I can't think of something that affects the House more collectively than our inability to offer amendments. And so I think our integrity is at issue here, these proceedings. I think Americans have come to understand, bills are rammed through here without the opportunity to be read. We've got a 1,026-page bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee that I can't imagine anybody has read yet. So, Madam Speaker, I'll conclude; that I hope you'll rule in my favor because I know, in your heart of hearts, you're a woman who believes in fairness, and you believe in the integrity of these proceedings, and you believe firmly and fervently in protecting the rights of Members, both individually and collectively, and that you, in no way, would want to diminish the capacity for yourself, when you're not in the chair, Members of this body, and for Members who will follow us. So I plead with you to do the right thing and allow a vote on my privileged resolution.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. I appreciate the gentleman raising this point of order and yielding. How ironic; the amendment we offered in good faith, after consideration with the parliamentarians, is fully in order under our House rules normally, except for the gag order that's been placed on us by the Rules Committee. How ironic; we're trying to stand up and protect First Amendment free speech rights for American citizens and broadcasters to be able to discuss political issues and religious issues on America's airwaves, protect that right as the House did in 2007 with a 309-115 bipartisan vote. We're talking about free expression, First Amendment rights, privileges that American citizens have enshrined, and the Democrat leadership of this Congress has conspired to prevent us from even allowing that amendment to be debated on this House floor and voted on. And yet, when it was brought before this House in 2007, 309 Members voted ``yes.'' It was a 3-1 margin that stood up for free speech and to protect free speech on America's airwaves, to protect the rights of religious broadcasters to engage in their discussions on America's airwaves. Members of both parties supported this. And yet today, sometimes I feel like we're more an Iranian-style democracy, where all these rules that have been in place for many, many years in this House, historically back to its inception, that allow for open and vigorous debate on our House floor, have been now twisted and turned and crammed down to the fact that you're gagged. I'm gagged, the people we represent are gagged. It is simply outrageous that this is occurring. We should be able to offer these amendments, as we have historically, in Republican and Democrat Congresses in the past. This is nearly unprecedented in the scope of clamping down on our ability to represent our constituents and in our ability to raise these issues on the floor of this great institution, of this democratic institution, where free speech and the opportunity to debate public policy issues are enshrined. What has this House come to?

Mr. WALDEN. It is kind of ironic for someone who is so passionate about achieving voting rights in this city that we would be denied voting rights on this floor on amendments that we sought to be considered. And that is really the issue I want to speak about at this time, and that is that we brought an amendment fully vetted within our rules to be allowable, had the Democrat majority allowed it to be considered, to protect freedom-of-speech rights for broadcasters and American citizens when it comes to debating political issues and religious issues on the Nation's airwaves. The great irony here is in this city we cannot, and in this Chamber cannot, get a vote or even a debate on that amendment under the new regime in charge here in the House. Now in 2007 when democracy was flourishing a little bit more in this body, and Members of Congress, elected by however many thousands of votes and representing more than half a million people, 650,000 or 660,000 people, could bring issues to this floor during this one time and have them debated and considered. When Mr. Pence and I brought the Broadcaster Freedom amendment to this floor, and it was allowed to be considered, 309 Members of this body voted in favor of it. When we sought to renew the prohibition on the Federal Government from putting Federal censors over the airwaves, we were denied the opportunity even to have that debate. You see, the one we got passed in 2007 expired 1 year later because it only went for as long as the appropriations bill. We have a bill, a bipartisan bill, in committee to make this permanent. But once again, the Democratic leadership refuses to engage in democracy and allows us even to have a hearing on that legislation. Now, the irony is that both Republicans and Democrats in times gone by have abused the Fairness Doctrine. Bill Ruder who was assistant Secretary of Commerce under John Kennedy admitted to CBS news producer, Fred Friendly, ``Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hoped the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.'' George Will reported in a column December 7, 2008, that Richard Nixon emulated that process. What we are trying to do is prevent any party, any politician in Washington from using a flawed process to silence and gag political speech on the airwaves. We all ought to be for that. Now the Fairness Doctrine is gone right now. But there are many, including leaders on the other side of the aisle, who have called for its return. Leader after leader, when asked by the press, called for its return. Some will say, well, no, that is not going to happen. Well, they have come around with a Trojan horse in the back door and say, we are going to do it a different way. We are going to call it ``localism.'' We are going to set up these boards and commissions. We will have all this involvement. And if a broadcaster doesn't live up to what they are told to do, then their license will be pulled, or whatever. We are just trying to say, no, Government, we don't need your censorship. Stay out of the process and allow us a vote. Don't just gag and spend here.

Mr. WALDEN. If you want to talk about how this body is being run, in the Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday, the best we could get on the Democrats' health plan was a closed-door briefing from the Congressional Budget Office that was only open to members of our staff and to no other staff and to no other citizens, and it was shut down to the press. Now, I find that outrageous. So not only is this occurring on the amendments we hope to bring that are fully within the scope of the rules of this House and that have been well vetted--and you can smile. I get it. You guys are in control. You're going to win. You've got the votes. You can shut us down. Yet, at the end of the day, the American people get it, and they get that bills are being rammed through here without due consideration and process and that Members on both sides of the aisle are having their amendments shut down, and they're not even being allowed to be considered. I've been here for 10 years now. I remember, during appropriations season, we worked hard. We worked day and night, sometimes a lot longer than I'd wished we'd worked, but Members had the right under our rules to bring amendments forward that were within the constraints of the rules of this House and within the historic principles of this House. We had vigorous debates and we took tough votes. Then we went back and we defended those votes.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House. The form of my resolution is as follows: Whereas the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden submitted an amendment to the Committee on Rules to H.R. 3170, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act; Whereas the said gentleman's amendment would have protected the free speech rights of broadcasters and American citizens by prohibiting funds made available in the Act from being used to implement the Fairness Doctrine and certain broadcast localism regulations, Whereas a similar amendment was adopted by the House in 2007 during consideration of H.R. 2829, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2008 by a vote of 309 yeas and 115 nays, and became law, but the Democratic leadership allowed the provision to expire; Whereas the gentleman's amendment complied with all applicable Rules of the House for amendments to appropriations measures and would have been in order under an open amendment process; but regrettably the House Democratic leadership has dramatically and historically reduced the opportunity for free speech on this Floor, and Whereas the Speaker, Mrs. Pelosi, the Democratic leadership, and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey, prevented the House from voting on the amendment by excluding it from the list of amendments made in order under the rule for the bill: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That H. Res. 644, the rule to accompany H.R. 3170, be amended to allow the gentleman from Oregon's amendment be considered and voted on in the Houses.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, consistent with the House Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, to the best of my knowledge the requests I have detailed below are (1) not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; and (2) not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark. As required by earmark standards adopted by the House Republican Conference, I submit the following information on projects I requested and were included in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010 (H.R. 3183). Account: Bureau of Reclamation--Water and Related Resources Project Name: Deschutes Project Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Deschutes Basin Board of Control, PO Box 919, Madras, OR 97741 Project Location: Deschutes County, Oregon Description of Project: H.R. 3183 appropriates $482,000 for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Deschutes Project. According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used by the Bureau of Reclamation in coordination with the Deschutes Basin Board of Control (consists of the seven primary irrigation districts in Central Oregon) to pursue water conservation, piping, lining and efficiency projects that will improve irrigation efficiencies, and result in increased in-stream flows benefiting federally-listed steelhead and bull trout in the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers and their tributaries. The Deschutes Basin Board of Control states in their request that these projects will provide a broad array of economic and environmental benefits to central Oregonians. Account: Bureau of Reclamation--Water and Related Resources Project Name: Savage Rapids Dam Removal Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Grants Pass Irrigation District, 200 Fruitdale Drive, Grants Pass, OR 97527 Project Location: Savage Rapids Dam, Grants Pass, Oregon Description of Project: H.R. 3183 appropriates $1,160,000 for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Savage Rapids Dam Removal project. According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used by the Bureau of Reclamation to complete installation, testing, and operation of electric pumps and to complete removal of a major portion of the Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue River, Oregon. The Grants Pass Irrigation District states that this project, which was authorized by P.L. 108-137, is a justified use of taxpayer funding because it will restore significant portions of the Rogue Wild and Scenic River to a free-flowing river by removing the dam as an impediment to passage of federally-listed fish species. Account: Corps of Engineers--Section 206 Project Name: Camp Creek, Zumwalt Prairie Preserve, OR Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: The Nature Conservancy in Oregon, 821 SE 14th Avenue, Portland, OR 97214 Project Location: Wallowa County, Oregon Description of Project: H.R. 3183 provides Corps of Engineers Section 206 status for the Camp Creek, Zumwalt Prairie Preserve in Oregon. According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used by the Corps of Engineers for site work on this ecosystem restoration project, including the removal of small push-up dams and to restore aquatic and riparian habitats within the upper Camp Creek watershed in The Nature Conservancy's Zumwalt Prairie Preserve in Wallowa County. The Nature Conservancy states in its request that this project is a justified use of taxpayer funding because it will create approximately 15 to 20 temporary and full-time jobs and support the restoration of aquatic and riparian habitat conditions along six miles of spawning habitat for Snake River Steelhead. Account: Corps of Engineers--Investigations Project Name: Walla Walla Watershed, OR & WA Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, PO Box 638, Pendleton, OR 97801 Project Location: Umatilla, Wallowa, and Union Counties in Oregon, Walla Walla and Columbia County in Washington Description of Project: H.R. 3183 appropriates $203,000 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue the general investigations of the Walla Walla Watershed project. According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used by the Corps of Engineers for the feasibility report/environmental impact statement (FR/EIS) and to initiate pre-engineering and design based on findings and recommendations of the ER/EIS. Moreover, the project will provide restoration and management tools needed to help create a viable ecosystem within the Walla Walla River Basin for federally-listed bull trout and steelhead. The requesting entity states that this project is a justified use of taxpayer funding because the ER/EIS will promote the fulfillment of a Treaty reserved right of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. Account: Department of Energy--EERE Project Name: Christmas Valley Renewable Energy Development Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon Department of Energy, 625 Marion St. NE, Salem, OR 97301 Project Location: Christmas Valley, Oregon Description of Project: H.R. 3183 appropriates $410,000 for the Oregon Department of Energy's Christmas Valley Renewable Energy Development project. According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used to conduct renewable energy assessments at the former site of the Air Combat Command Radar Transmitter located in Christmas Valley, Oregon. Specifically, the project will fund assessments of wind, solar and geothermal energy resources. Over the years, the US Air Force and Bureau of Land Management have left intact the mothballed facility's massive electrical transmission lines and support infrastructure that will someday allow for renewable energy development. The requesting entity states that this project is a justified use of taxpayer funding because it would advance the utilization of various renewable resources while providing a significant economic boost to the local economy of Lake County, Oregon which currently has a seasonably adjusted unemployment rate of 12.8 percent. Account: Department of Energy--EERE Project Name: Geothermal Power Generation Plant at Oregon Institute of Technology Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon Institute of Technology, 3201 Campus Drive, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601 Project Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon Description of Project: H.R. 3183 appropriates $1,000,000 for Oregon Institute of Technology's Geothermal Power Generation Plant. According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used to help construct a high-temperature geothermal power plant on the Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT) campus. The plant will eventually provide 100 percent of the electricity demands and hot water supply to the campus and it would be the first flash steam geothermal power plant in Oregon. When the Geothermal Power Generation Plant is complete, OIT will be the only campus in the world to satisfy all of its electricity needs from an on-site geothermal energy source. The requesting entity states that this project is a justified use of taxpayer funding because it would serve as a demonstration tool and educational training facility for OIT students and faculty.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, consistent with the House Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, to the best of my knowledge the request I have detailed below is (1) not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; and (2) not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark. As required by earmark standards adopted by the House Republican Conference, I submit the following information on a project I requested and was included in H.R. 3170--the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2010. Account: Salaries and Expenses Project Name: Technology Education Center Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Central Oregon Community College, 2600 NW College Way, Bend, Oregon 97701 Project Location: Bend, Oregon Description of Project: H.R. 3170 appropriates $100,000 for the Central Oregon Community College Technology Education Center project. According to the requesting entity, this funding will be used to design and construct a 30,400 square foot Technology Education Center that will offer courses designed to ensure that the local workforce meets the needs of local industry. A quarter of the building space will be designated as an incubator for local industries to work with students to conduct research in order to develop new products and/or manufacturing processes that will strengthen local businesses while providing hands-on training to students. This is a beneficial use of taxpayer funding because this effort will ensure that the local workforce meets the needs of local employers and that local businesses have access to a facility that allows them to conduct research that will strengthen their business models.