Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. And under the suspension of the rules, you denied the minority the opportunity to offer an alternative. As you could on many other bills and have, you could have brought H.R. 3058 back yesterday, the day before, any day since it went down. You had 218 votes on the House floor and you could pass it. I voted against it because it violates contracts. It was a placeholder. And you did not keep your word coming out of the Resources Committee that it would include payment in lieu of taxes when it came to the floor and it would have a different pay-for. That was another broken commitment. So bring it to the floor. Bring it tomorrow. You are on the Rules Committee, you could do that, and you refuse. So stop the rhetoric, and let's get to the facts. [From the Oregonian, Sept. 25, 2008] For House Democratic Leaders, Rural Counties Are Not a Priority Help for rural counties simply is not a priority in the U.S. House of Representatives. That's the only explanation for the House leadership's decision to strip county payments from a popular tax bill just hours after the Senate voted 93- 2 for a bill that would have continued the program that sends $185 million a year into 33 Oregon counties. We don't blame Oregon's congressional delegation. By all accounts, Reps. Peter DeFazio and Earl Blumenauer, both Democrats, and Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., argued strongly for inclusion of funding for county payments. This was not a matter of their will--it was a matter of the inability of Oregon Democrats to persuade their own party leaders to support the aid to counties. House Democrats first tried to blame the White House, but the Bush administration on Thursday issued a clear statement that it would sign the Senate bill, with the county payments included, but would not sign the bill that House Democrats favored. House Democrats also tried to pose as fiscal conservatives in denying county payments, but that was unconvincing, too. The House Democrats are only the latest leaders in Washington to turn their back on rural counties, The Bush White House has consistently been lukewarm to hostile on the payment program. And many of the Republicans who formerly controlled the Congress did not lift a finger to get county payments extended. But this time, it is Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leaders who decided to break the nation's promise to help support rural counties who host vast areas of federal timberland. The Senate, encouraged by Oregon's Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith, provided strong backing for including the county payments in the popular tax bill. Now that the White House has signaled its clear preference for the Senate version of the tax bill, Senate President Harry Reid of Nevada and other Senate Democratic leaders should stand firm and send their bill right back to the House, with the county payments intact. While all this goes on, rural Oregon counties are preparing for wholesale layoffs of their sheriff's deputies and shutdowns of libraries and other local services. They are also watching the federal government rush to the financial aid, it seems, of everyone and anyone but the timber communities of Oregon and the West.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I move to take down his words.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I'm talking about the bill that came up in June that was defeated on a suspension vote. You could have turned around the next day if you felt so passionately--you're on the Rules Committee--and brought it to the floor under a rule, couldn't you?

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Or when the Senate sent over a 1-year funding package in the emergency supplemental, why did the House leadership strike it there? There have been multiple opportunities this year to deal with this issue in multiple ways, and we are told that Sunday night we're going to be done and out of here for the session. And every time somebody says to me, well, gee, I'm all for it but we've got to do it later on or this bill or that bill or not this bill or that bill. We're out of time. The layoffs have already occurred. The jobs are gone. The communities are suffering. The law enforcement officials have been let go. I don't know where to go from here. I'm bitterly disappointed that we have these silly arguments when we ought to be passing legislation that actually helps real people in real places.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I want to thank my colleague and friend from Texas for yielding the time to me at this time. I'm bitterly disappointed, frankly, that we find ourselves back here on this floor once again without an opportunity even to offer up an alternative. And to put it in perspective for my colleagues who may not frequent the Rules Committee, ``closed rule'' means that the minority has no opportunity to offer up an alternative. Period. No opportunity to come to this floor in this great democratic institution, the finest in the world, and have a chance to have a vote on an alternative to this measure. That's what a closed rule is. You shut it down, you shut out everybody else. You got your way. You run the train, and you ran right over the top of literally half the people in America, nearly, who are represented on this side of the aisle. So what does that mean? It means the amendment that I hoped would be allowed to at least be debated and considered here will not be. I appreciate my colleague from Washington's Fourth District, Doc Hastings, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington, who offered the amendment. And it was defeated on a strict party-line partisan vote that precludes our opportunity here on the floor when it went down to defeat to even have a discussion about what it means to the 20 counties I represent and the many that he does and the 4,400 school districts and multi-hundred counties in 42 States that have had their revenue sharing cut off because this Congress, this Congress has failed to reauthorize county payments program. So why are we here? The Senate had a similar bill to this. It passed 93-2. Huge bipartisan effort trying to get the problem solved for this country. That would have extended these extenders that help on renewable energy, which I'm a big fan of. It also took care of this enormously important issue to the West because it is principally a western issue because, frankly, that's where the Federal lands are is in the West. Now I know that other counties and other school districts around the country are affected, certainly, and this legislation could have helped them had it been allowed to be offered, but it's not being offered. But nobody is affected more than my colleague from the Fourth District in Oregon and myself, our constituents, some of whom now are out of work. The largest county in my district had to close all of its public libraries. Most of the road departments in my district have been cut in half, perhaps more. Now in some counties there's one road person for every 100 miles of road. Many of the roads will be turned back to gravel, back to gravel. That's not progress in America. And the Rules Committee had the jurisdiction, has the authority to prevent that from happening by at least allowing us to have a vote. Not once, not twice, but multiple times they denied that vote. Now the gentleman from New York raised in the discussion of the Rules Committee about a bill that was brought to the floor that would have reauthorized county schools and roads for 4 years. I was cosponsor of that bill originally under the premise and promise that when it came to the floor it would have a different pay-for because that's what was promised in the Resources Committee, and that payment in lieu of taxes would be included in that bill when it came to the floor--that was the promise, and it was broken. It came to the floor differently. The gentleman will say, Well, you're in the pocket of Big Oil because we wanted to raise the fees on oil companies to pay for it. Well, please. Under the conservation of resource fee that is allowable under the contract at issue here, the leases, you can add that fee but you can't use it to pay for county payments. The courts have looked at this issue. You can use it to do resource work around the shorelines and all, but you violate contracts when you do it the way you all brought it to the floor. So, we can argue about that. I happen to believe I'm right. I'm right, I know, in that the promises were broken when it came to the floor. In addition to that, I also believe that you all have the power to decide how bills come to the floor. You made the decision to bring it under suspension of the rules, had to suspend the rules of the House, requiring a two-thirds majority for that to be passed in this House. And it failed. And the reason you brought it to the floor under suspension was so that the Republicans could offer no alternative, because that's the issue, isn't it? When you bring a bill under suspension, you and I both know, all of us know the minority has no chance to offer an alternative; it's an up-or-down vote. So we had the up-or-down vote, and it failed. So then the bill went away, except we also know that you in the majority are most powerful and in the Rules Committee have a 2-to-1 plus one vote. You could craft a rule tonight, just as you have done here, and you could bring that bill back to the floor tomorrow, couldn't you, because you have got 218 votes for it. You didn't get the two-thirds. You got 218. So any day since that bill failed on the floor on suspension, you could have brought it back. And you could have sent it to the Senate. If you'd had the same pay- for, it would still violate contracts. The Senate's repeatedly refused to accept that pay-for, oh, by the way, I was told repeatedly it was nothing but a placeholder, anyway, and it was never going to be used to fund the bill. So it was never really going to get the job done. This bill that the Senate sent to us would get the job done. It's honest. It's direct. It would pay for 4 years of county payments in PILT. It would put our people back to work. It would help people deal with the problems in our Nation's forests that are so, so at risk of fire and destruction. It would allow the funding to go back to the communities, to our schools, so that teachers could be hired rather than fired; so we could maintain the roads that lead to our national forests; so that we could pay for search and rescue; so we could actually have collaborative efforts again under title II to go out and bring people together and do what needs to be done in our forests. You have that power in the majority. We had it when we were in the majority, and those who criticized us for not getting this reauthorized when it just went to expiration, you're right. I was frustrated with our own majority that we couldn't get it done. I take that criticism. I leveled that criticism because I am so passionate about the need to maintain this partnership that's now been broken not for 1 year but for 2. And this is today. Today is when you make the decision to move forward or not. This is today. It's actually tonight. And we've had two shots today where you could have given us this alternative to at least have a vote on the floor. So my colleague from Texas, I apologize for my time. I do not apologize for my passion on the need to get a chance to at least have a real vote on a real measure that the President would sign and that the Senate's approved. So I am bitterly disappointed tonight that for the second time in one day we have been denied on a party-line vote the opportunity to even have this amendment be considered on the floor of this great democratic institution.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I thank the gentleman. I wonder if the gentleman from New York would yield to a question or be willing to accept a question. And the question is why, given the status of the majority, did you not bring that bill back under a rule or allow it to come to the floor under a rule to begin with? You're on the Rules Committee.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Yes.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Reclaiming my time, but answer me this question. Why did the majority decide it had to come under suspension of the rules, denying the minority to have an alternative?

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I'll answer your question very clearly, because of two reasons. One, the majority did not include payment in lieu of taxes in the bill, which they promised when it left the Resources Committee they would do. Two, they also promised that pay-for was nothing but a placeholder that would be removed before it came to the floor. So that wasn't done correctly. And three, you violate contracts, which I didn't come to Congress to violate contracts. I never did it in 21 years in private business. I wasn't going to do it here. And it's not a royalty fee, by the way, that you had. It was a fee on conservation and resource, which the courts have looked at and said you can assess but you have to spend it for that purpose and that purpose only, and county payments doesn't fit that category. And you have used it multiple times and the Senate has rejected it. So it wasn't going to work. So now I've answered your question. You answer mine. Why don't you bring it tomorrow to the floor under a rule?

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. You told me there was a pay-for.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I do.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Reclaiming my time, you refuse to answer why your majority doesn't bring it back up under a rule. It only takes 218 to pass it under a rule, a majority of those present. You had 218 that day. You see the point is, you wouldn't bring it up under a rule because you wanted no debate on a real alternative or any other amendment that would be allowed under a rule. You could have passed it the next day and sent it on to the Senate. You chose not to. I don't control the Rules Committee. You all dominate it two-to-one plus one. So if you care about school kids, you bring it up in a way that doesn't violate contracts, that actually could pay for it, or you allow us to bring it up under this bill or you put it in the continuing resolution or when the Senate sent it over as a 1-year extension--

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Why?

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Why? Of course you could. You do it all the time. A bill goes down on suspension--we did it, you do it--you bring it back under a rule the next day or a week later. You had 218 votes on the floor.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Thank you to my colleague from Texas, and I note the chairman, apparently, has had to leave the floor, but perhaps he will be able to hear this somewhere wherever he is. It is extraordinarily important to the States that are involved, to the 4,400 school districts that are involved, the 600 rural counties that are involved, this is the opportunity that is being lost. This measure, when it came from the other body, passed by the other body, had in it a 4-year reauthorization bipartisan of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. That funding is used to help school kids go to school in areas where there is a high preponderance of Federal lands, timber lands. That funding is being taken away. It helps pay for search and rescue, fire and police. That funding is being taken away. You see, I have got counties that up to 70 percent of their land mass is off their tax rolls because it's Federal land. We have 11 national forests in my district alone in the nearly 70,000 square miles of Oregon that I represent. The mills are closed because of change in policy and litigation. The jobs are lost, the revenues have dried up. Now the Federal Government, in effect, is breaching its nearly century-old commitment, century-old commitment, to share revenues and help. Now yesterday on this House floor the majority waived twice PAYGO rules on two other tax provisions, waived them. They have waived them before. If they were going to bring a bill here that has pay-fors in it to pay for the tax extensions, why did they rip out county payments and not, instead, pay for them somehow and put that on the floor? It's a choice they made. Why didn't they allow us to have at least a vote on the floor on an amendment and let the will of the House be worked, as they promised they would do if they got control of this House, and now seem less inclined to allow? So there is no opportunity for my side of the aisle, the Republicans, to even offer an amendment, to keep the Federal Government's commitment for the last 100 years to these rural schools and counties and sheriffs' departments, to do the search and rescue, to do the fire work, to do everything they do, educate our kids, among other things. It also denies us the opportunity to reauthorize titles II and III of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, which brings together in a collaborative process environmental organizations, forestry and community leaders in all the States. How can we be better stewards of the lands around us? How do we get out and do the work that, A, produces jobs; B, makes our forests healthier and safer and our communities safer? That funding stream has dried up. There have been massive layoffs in the local governments that I represent. We have counties in Oregon, some of which are contemplating bankruptcy, bankruptcy, dissolve, go away, turn themselves back to the States and the neighboring counties. This is real serious stuff, and it has been going on a long time. This is the opportunity before us. We asked the leadership in a bipartisan way. Members of both parties sent letters to the leadership saying can you give us another 1-year extension in the CR. They chose not to, and that's their prerogative. This is the vehicle that's come from the Senate, or at least the vehicle that the Senate passed would have reauthorized and funded county payments for the next 4 years in a phased-out process. Now some have alleged in the press that it was dropped because the President was going to veto this bill if it was in it. That's not what the statement of administrative policy says, and I don't believe that's what the chairman said or the leadership on the Democrat side of the aisle said. This isn't because the President said he would veto it, because he didn't say he would veto it. He said he would sign it if the House would take it up. So this could become law. This could become law. This could be passed, this could become law. We could get back on track in 600 rural counties and 4,400 school districts in 42 States and be the partner we should be. We do a lot of things in this Congress for this, our Nation's city. That's right, because there is a huge Federal footprint and presence here, so we do a lot of things to help the residents of Washington, DC. I believe the figure is 26 percent of the land mass of Washington, DC is Federal. And the rest is private. You get out in the west and upwards of half of our States in some cases, and sometimes more, is Federal ground. When there is a fire in the forest, which we have had, again, another record season of fire- fighting costs and loss of life and loss of habitat and forests, it is the local sheriff's department. It is the local community that is affected. In southern Oregon this year in the Rogue Valley, for nearly a month the air quality was about as bad as you can get because of the fires in northern California choking the air shed. There is so much work we need to do out in our forests.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. In the Winema-Fremont National Forest, there is more than 500,000 acres of Federal and private land that is ready to go up in smoke. It is disease-ridden. There is beetle kill. And because of the way that the budget is structured and this Congress' refusal--we did it in the House but the Senate hasn't taken it up, a bill to create a separate fire category for the Forest Service, they have had to take $1 million out of that one forest alone to pay for current fire- fighting costs elsewhere, which means the money is not available to go in and do the thinning and remove the dying trees and open up the stands and deal with the beetle kill. They have had to put all of that, or at least $1 million of it, on hold which just means that the problem gets worse faster. So when it ignites, and it will, folks, you will have half-a-million acres in the northwest, in the Winema-Fremont National Forest, go up in smoke. Now this legislation, if we can get an amendment, and if you vote down the previous question, I will offer a 4-year extension as the alternative. So you will have a chance to vote. If you are for county payments, vote ``no'' on the previous question. If that fails, then our motion to recommit will be the full Senate bill that has the 4-year extension with county payments in it. So this is where the rubber hits the road. This is where you have an opportunity to be for county payments, for your local schools, for the sheriff service, for search and rescue. For all the things, the collaborative approaches to forest management that this legislation in the past has helped provide. Unless you think that this is a partisan issue, it never was and should never be, because it was enacted in a Republican Congress with a Democrat President, and it has been hailed as a marvelous success on the ground, and it has been a wonderful partnership until it was allowed to expire. Today we need to reauthorize it. Today we need to be given at least the opportunity to vote on it. What is wrong in a democratic institution, the finest on the planet, of offering us at least an opportunity to vote? You have the votes if you want to kill it. You outnumber us on rules more than 2-to-1. There are ways to do this. It doesn't have to be this way.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I thank my colleague and friend from Texas for yielding. I come to the floor today bitterly disappointed that this majority is one more time denying the opportunity to fund county timber payments to districts like mine. The Secure Rural Schools Program aids more than 600 rural counties, and 4,400 school districts in 42 States. Let me say that again: 4,400 school districts, 42 States, 600 rural counties are affected by this. There is broad bipartisan support to reauthorize this legislation and keep a nearly century-old commitment to the areas like I represent in rural Oregon where the Federal Government owns more than half of the land, much of it timbered. In the old days they would share the receipts from the timber harvest, and then the Federal Government and the courts shut all of that down. I have three counties that have more than 8 percent unemployment. Virtually all of the mills are gone. I had people coming up to me last weekend in their overalls asking, Is there any hope? Is there any hope for them and their kids to make a decent living taking care of America's forests? Is there any hope to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act in this Congress? I gave them a little hope. I said the Senate, the United States Senate, seems to be caring about us. And, indeed, in the tax extenders bill passed by the United States Senate by 93-2, they reauthorized the Secure Rural Schools, phasing it out over 4 years in a formula we all agreed to, but we don't necessarily like. Time and again, Democrat leadership in this House has said ``no'' to that legislation. That is happening right here, right now. It just happened up in the Rules Committee by denying an amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) on a party-line 8-3 vote. They said, no, we won't even let the House vote to take care of these folks back home and keep this 100-year-old Federal commitment. It is outrageous. It is outrageous. Let me tell you what it means to the people out there. These are real jobs being lost. There are counties in Oregon that may declare bankruptcy. Half the police force in sheriff's offices, the deputies are gone. Road department after road department after road department, cut, slashed, gone. I have counties that have one road maintenance person for every 100 miles of road in their county now. That is the distance from the Nation's capital to Richmond, Virginia, in case you're counting. You are down to where there won't be any patrols by sheriff's deputies. And yet Americans want to recreate in America's forests. Unfortunately, they go out there and occasionally they get lost. And when they get lost, whom do they call upon to come find them but these same search and rescue teams. Tragically, often they have perished in my State before they get rescued. It was through funding through this program, or in the old days through the revenue sharing that came to those counties that we were able to have the search and rescue teams and the equipment and everything necessary to go out and try and rescue these families who would get lost or caught in a snowstorm. That is going away. Schools are deeply affected. In my State, the money, $280 million a year, was funneled throughout all of the school districts. In some States they didn't do it that way. They have already laid off teachers. Now what is wrong with keeping the word that this Speaker and others said at the beginning of this Congress that there would be an open and fair opportunity for the minority to offer up amendments, have them fully considered, and have them so people can see them. No, this Rules Committee on an 8-3 basis said we are not going to even allow you to have a vote. And the heck with these county roads and schools where the Federal Government has total control, and the heck with the people who live out there. County roads and school reauthorization should never have been a partisan issue, and yet it has become that. This House could simply take up the Senate bill under a different rule and allow a vote. And the President of the United States, although he is not the biggest fan of reauthorizing this county payments program, said he would sign that bill that came out of the Senate. So he is not the obstacle. He never said he would veto this. He doesn't like parts of it, but the staff is pretty clear that he would sign it into law and we would reauthorize it. Republicans would like to see a vote on this. They tried in the Rules Committee, but your Rules Committee said no. So here we are today. This same day rule short-circuits that process with a rule that says this is all you get, and shoves it back to the Senate. It is time for reform and time for change, and it needs to start right here right now by defeating this same-day rule, by defeating the next rule and giving people in this House the chance to represent their people back home by at least having a vote to reauthorize and fund county roads and schools. I will tell you, when you let them down, you are hurting literally school kids and putting people's lives in peril because search and rescue will be reduced or eliminated in some areas, and police forces are already being dramatically cut. And that is wrong. It doesn't have to be that way. If we really wanted to solve problems, you wouldn't ram this through the way you are doing it.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I appreciate the gentleman's kind and generous comments, and also his willingness to come out to my State this summer and see what we are facing in some of these forests. I talked to a county commissioner from Klamath County yesterday morning. The Winema National Forest now, between the Federal forest land and adjacent private land, there is a half-a-million acres, 500,000 acres, that is now bug infested and nearly dead, if not completely dead. They can go in and treat that area, clean it up, replant it, get the dead trees out for about $250 an acre. If we wait until it catches on fire, taxpayers will spend $1,500 to $2,000 an acre to fight the fire. Reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act makes funds available through different titles in the bill to assist those local governments and the Forest Service to get in and make our forests less susceptible to catastrophic fire, healthier by removing the dead or diseased trees or those that are bug infested and get ahead of this and actually be better stewards of our lands. This year, the Federal Forest Service budget spent over half, 52 percent so far, to fight fire. In that forest alone, they had to take $1 million away from forest treatment efforts to pay for fighting fires elsewhere. So we fall further and further behind. This is not the stewardship of our forests that we should be proud of. It is the lack of stewardship that would cause Theodore Roosevelt to roll over in his grave, the great founder of our Nation's forest system. And it doesn't have to happen. It doesn't have to happen. Communities shouldn't be evacuated because of fire threat. Our budgets at the Forest Service shouldn't be exhausted to put out fires. And the biggest economic activity in a rural, forested timbered community around these Federal lands shouldn't be the making of sandwiches for the fire fighters. This has to stop. The gentleman from New York is a cosponsor of the legislation I'm advocating here. There are other members of the Rules Committee that are cosponsors of this legislation on both sides of the aisle. This is our opportunity. This is our moment. This is our time. The Senate and the White House support this effort in the legislation sent here by the Senate. If not now, when? Or do you let it all burn? Because that's what's happening out there. Do you put people out of work? You claim you're for family wage jobs. You're killing them in my part of the world. Am I angry about this? You bet I am. This is real life-and-death stuff. I was at the memorial service for the firefighters who were killed in Northern California, killed fighting fires. And while that, tragically, will happen again, and it is not all the fault that we don't have the Community Self-Determination Act in place, we need to get better policy. We need to get ahead of this problem. We need to be the good stewards we're entrusted to be of these lands. It is not that hard to be fair. It shouldn't be that hard.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I rise today to draw our colleagues' attention to a gentleman and outstanding citizen who has demonstrated that long-term success is possible in America if one has a vision and is willing to work hard to turn it into reality. This gentleman has also devoted himself to the principles we celebrate here in our country--freedom to build a successful business, and loyalty to family and community. Today I pay special recognition and honor to Bob Thomas, Sr., of Baker County, OR, a genuine ``up by the bootstraps'' livestock producer who never lost his vision for what the Angus cattle breed could become; a dedicated husband to his wife, Gloria, with whom he raised four very successful children; a leader in his church, community, and industry--and a gentleman whose friends and neighbors have always been able to rely on. Bob and Gloria moved to the Baker Valley of picturesque eastern Oregon in the early 1960's from New York, via Iowa. With them came their treasured seed stock for their line of Angus beef cattle. In the winter, Gloria fed the cows with young son Rob in the pickup. Bob was also working as a sales representative for Powder River Equipment, selling gates and ranch equipment to supplement their ranch income. They worked very hard to achieve their dream--a high quality herd of registered Angus cattle. Their first purebred Angus sale was held in October, 1973 and throughout the years Bob and Gloria always made everyone feel like they were special to them because, in fact, they were special to them. Now, nearly 35 years later, that same high quality Angus breeding stock is sold in a 2-day sale in October, as well as a spring sale in March. The Thomas family still shows the same hospitality and personal attention today as they did at their very first sale. Following in the footprints of Bob and Gloria, son Rob and his wife Lori continue the Thomas tradition as highly respected leaders in their industry and community. They maintain the same unwavering commitment to the high quality of their Angus line and service. Madam Speaker, I want to especially honor Bob for his many years of dedication to and support of the people of Baker County and the rural way of life in eastern Oregon. His fellow citizens greatly appreciate his high principles, commitment to high quality and standards, and his friendship. Please join me in congratulating and thanking Bob Thomas, Sr.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. So we can do better. We can be better stewards of our Nation's forest. We owe it, as our legacy to the future, to be good stewards today. But we can't do it with the laws that are in place that impede the work. I mean, we owe it. I can't be more passionate about this. And I've worked with many of you in a bipartisan way to pass the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act, which the Senate failed to take up last Congress. We've got to do better than we're doing now. This is a good little step forward in terms of managing the money so that the forest workers can do their work. We need to do more.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today in support of this legislation and feel that it's a good first step. Unfortunately, it doesn't do quite what it was supposed to do, which was to really wall this off as emergency funding and address the problem. But it does authorize the money. It does set up a separate budget account. Today in the Forest Service they spend 47 percent of their budget fighting fire. And for many years I've argued on this floor that what happens is we get the fire season, the Forest Service runs out of money, so then they rob from all the accounts where they had the projects in place to do the thinning to reduce the threat of fire for the next year. And then time runs out in the season, they can't do those projects, and we get fire. And then we restore the money as a Congress, and we repeat the cycle. And today in America there are tens of millions, if not hundreds, of acres of Federal forest land that are subject to catastrophic fire, disease and bug infestation. If you're concerned about global warming and think carbon additions to the atmosphere are the problem, then you need to know that every year 290 million metric tons of carbon dioxide go into our atmosphere from forest fires. That's the equivalent of 4 to 6 percent of the Nation's carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning. This portrait here is a picture of Judge Steve Grasty, a Democrat in my district, his grandkids. And they're standing out in the Egley fire after it occurred in Harney Country. This fire burned well over 100,000 acres in an area that obviously needed thinning and hadn't been thinned. And that's part of what brings me to the floor today, not only to support this bill--because I think it makes sense to have a separate firefighting budget, I think it makes sense to identify the most highest risk areas that need the treatment and to go in and treat them and to help the communities with grants and the things that are in this bill--but we need to do more than that because we should have learned the lesson that a treated forest is a healthier forest. When we collectively passed the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and signed into law by President Bush in 2003, the Forest Service began to have the tools to expedite the treatments in the wildland urban interface. And the collaborative process my colleague from Idaho talked about that brought together the Community Wildfire Protection Planning Program allowed them to go outside the 1.5 mile around the community, and the community decided what needed to be treated. The problem in my region, region six in the northwest, the great forest of America, is that most of the fires--over 1,400 of them in 2007--started up in the ridge lines and deep in the forest. Only a dozen or two dozen started right around the wildland urban interface. The foresters who are the trained scientists that deal with fire environment tell me they need to take that Healthy Forest Restoration authority we gave them as a Congress in a bipartisan way and expand it out into the Condition Class 2 and 3 lands, the lands determined by the scientists to be most out of whack with balance in nature, to go in and do the thinning. And we know where that occurs, fire behaves differently. And you all from California know very clearly, this is the kind of fire you have today, it sweeps through these areas that are overstocked, bug-infested, disease-ridden, dried out and can't handle fire. This is the same area of that fire, the Squire's Peak Fire, that had been treated. This area that's burning is the area they hadn't treated yet. This is the difference. Look at the green growth here. The fire went through under the brush that had been treated, and it's fine. This picture, by the way, was shot by the last guy doing treatment as they drove away from the fire. They were out doing the treatment, and then they turned into firefighters and he shot that out of the back of his rig. So I think we need to move forward with different legislation. This is good legislation: Pass it; get it over to the Senate; declare it an emergency; do this funding piece. But we need to do more. If you want to deal with these fires that are setting records for how much they consume, not only of the taxpayers' purse, but of our Nation's resource, habitat, watershed, look at the greenhouse gases, the smoke, the pollutants in the atmosphere, then we have to be able to give our forest managers the tools that they've proven can work in a collaborative way around communities and extend those out into the great reserves, the forests that are Condition Class 2 and 3. And so I hope we can build a bipartisan coalition to do that. And I hope the chairman of the Resources Committee will help us on that. Because if we don't, then the change that's occurring in our climate with temperature will only cause these forests to grow more drought- ridden, more disease-ridden, more bug-infested, more likely to burn up in fire. And I'll tell you what, when you go back to this picture, Judge Grasty's grandkids, this is what's left behind. This is not snow, this is ashen, destroyed ground. These are the trees which, by the way, may never get hard.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Delaware and congratulate him and our colleague from New York on this legislation and just advise the body that Oregon, once again, is in the lead when it comes to recognizing national parks as our quarter. The design for the back of it for our State was processed through a very public effort. They picked Crater Lake National Park as the park to recognize on the back of the quarter. And so we're already in the lead, and it's a wonderful national park; and as my colleague from Georgia talked about earlier, it's also one you have to drive a great distance to get to. When I was in my home county this last week, diesel was $5.08 a gallon. Gasoline was $4.39 a gallon. And if this is the result of the new Democratic direction for the Congress and for the country, then I hope we're at about the end of this new direction because it's taken us to a dead-end. Now, I just wanted to point out a clarification, I guess, in terms of these leases we've heard so much about. My understanding is that when the Democrats were last in charge, they actually voted a law to extend the length of those leases that the oil companies had. And I would like to see them, the oil companies, process these leases and move forward with development because that's what I think America needs, more energy, more American energy. And yet this Congress has refused to even allow a vote, afraid to even allow a vote on accessing the 85 percent of the offshore resource that is not available. It's not available. And if the argument is that we would be better off by accessing the leases already there, then the argument really is adding to supply matters and that adding to supply will result in lower gas and lower diesel costs. So then it seems logical to presume that accessing America's great reserves, the Outer Continental Shelf, would not only create new oil and gas supplies for America and American consumers, it would also generate royalty dollars for government services. I have been working on legislation that would deal with the twin issues of energy policy for America that creates new gas, new diesel, new access to oil, as well as fund the biggest investment in renewable energy this Congress has seen and help those lowest income among us with their home heating bills and take care of the neglected challenge this Congress has refused to take up and pass, and that is help for our counties that are dominated by Federal lands. So we would pay for 5 years in county timber payments. We would fully fund the commitment to rural counties for payment in lieu of taxes. We would put $1 billion into LIHEAP and $3.1 billion into developing renewable energy. Now, my colleague from New York said, What did Republicans do when they were in charge? Well, we passed bill after bill after bill that raised conservation standards on appliances. We invested in the newest and futuristic technology trying to drive the basic science in hydrogen fuel cell development. We supported efforts to extend successfully, I might add, the tax credits for wind energy and geothermal and solar and the things that I think will give us a great future in renewable energy. But we have a here-and-today problem that this Congress and its leadership fails to address. I don't know where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were over the Fourth of July, but I was home with real people. They're hurting. There are truckers who are losing their jobs. There are farmers who tell me it costs hundreds of dollars to fill a tank in their tractor, and fertilizer has doubled in cost. There are families who can't go to their kids' summer games because it costs $87 to fill the Voyager van. If this is the new direction that the Democrats in this Congress have for America, I've got to tell you it's a dead-end direction and it needs to change. Why not give us at least the opportunity in this great House, this great place where Americans come together to debate issues, to at least allow a vote to access the energy reserves we know are out there on Federal land or in the Outer Continental Shelf, up in Alaska? And if it fails, it fails. The Congress will have spoken in the House. But so far we have gone through, as a result of the Democrat leadership, the most incredible--this reminds me of the game of Twister. We are so convoluted and upside down and twisted to avoid any vote that it is reprehensible. So, Mr. Speaker, I both support not only the act before us today, but I call for this House to at least allow a vote that I think would not only be bipartisan, as it was in 2006 when we passed, in this House, overwhelmingly with 40 Democrats supporting our efforts to get at our offshore oil resource. It would be an overwhelming bipartisan vote. And isn't that what democracy is really all about? You put an issue up on the table, you allow a vote, and we live with the outcome. So I ask for that opportunity, Mr. Speaker, just as we're voting today on this wonderful bill to allow national parks to have a coin. As I said, Oregon has been at the forefront on that issue just as we are on renewable energy. Let's have a vote. Let's not have a vote like we had when we passed the Energy Act of 2007 that said if another country is making oil from tar sands, don't let the American military use it. Or like was stuffed in that bill a provision that said if you could take woody biomass and turn it into an ethanol-like fuel, don't count that against the ethanol fuel standard. Why is that in there? Why can't you use the great resource of our American forests, convert them into ethanol using cellulosic technology, which Republicans and Democrats both agree need to happen? But then to say, Oh, but if you succeed at that, it doesn't count towards this out-of-control ethanol standard because we wouldn't want to count woody biomass off of Federal forests or unless it's specifically grown for that purpose, as ethanol, it can be used for a fuel standard in America. No. We would rather rely on corn, I guess. And that hasn't helped us a lot. So I think we have invested in new technologies when Republicans were in control. We invested in new science. We also tried to expedite access to America's great reserves. Every other country on the planet that has an ocean exercises its right to its own reserves, and yeah, it might take 10 years, but if Bill Clinton, former President, hadn't vetoed access into Alaska's reserves, we would be pumping a million to a million and a half barrels out a day. America uses, I think, what is it, 20 million barrels a day? We produce 5. Where would we be if President Clinton hadn't vetoed that? We would be a lot better off, folks, because the world produces about 85 million barrels a day and consumes 86, or thereabouts. This has a lot of things around it: certainly money supply, value of the dollar, inflation, speculators, who knows what. But at its core, until we bridge to the next generation of fuel for our vehicles, we have a here-and-now problem at the gas pump, at the diesel pump, and at the American budget. The families in this country are hurting, hurting; and if you're not hearing that on the other side of the aisle, you're not going home and listening. You can't hide forever on the ability to access America's resources. You can't stop the country from demanding a vote. Just one vote. Give us a vote, up-or-down, clean, simple, the way democracy is supposed to work here in this House. But no. The appropriations process ground to a halt. There might be a vote on energy. Every other bill that might have anything to do with energy ground to a halt. Heck, even declaring a wild and scenic river in Massachusetts had to be pulled because it dealt with LNG. Ground to a halt. This country is grinding to a halt. It's time for a change in how this Congress acts.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Is it in order to call a Member's motives in question, Mr. Chairman?