Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, this Congress continues to break the Federal Government's promise to America's timbered counties, including Klamath County in southern Oregon, by not reauthorizing the county payments program. Klamath County usually receives upwards of $19 million annually from county payments. The lapse of this program obviously has created a major budget shortfall for that rural county. It's been forced to deplete its operational reserves. It's cut over 10 jobs in areas like the sheriff's office, juvenile justice, administration, and planning. If revenues fail to meet projections and with the operational reserves depleted, the next rounds of cuts could easily result in more than 25 people in the sheriff's department alone losing their jobs. Klamath County is known for running a tight ship so each new cut carries serious consequences to public services. Since January of this year, the Democrat majority in this House has sat on H.R. 3058, a bipartisan 4-year reauthorization bill for county payments. Nothing's happened. No vote. I, again, call on the Democratic leadership: Do the right thing. Keep the commitment to the timbered communities of this country and pass the reauthorization or put it in the farm bill or put it in the supplemental. Don't strip it out. Restore faith with rural counties all across America. Keep the Federal commitment to these timbered counties.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, in Deschutes County, Oregon, 78 percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government. That's an area 50 percent larger than the State of Rhode Island. Yet the Federal Government has pulled the plug on its commitment to this central Oregon county, by allowing the county timber payments program to expire. A full 10 percent of Deschutes County's annual budget is comprised of county payments. Faced with the possibility of losing those funds, the county last year laid off employees and cut services in its road department. This year the county's grappling with a similar choice, lay off more employees, cut vital services, or find a balance of the two. Deschutes County Commissioner Dennis Luke said, ``It's not only our roads that will take a hit. More importantly, it affects our ability to reduce the threat of wildfire, provide search and rescue services to folks who enjoy recreating on the vast stretches of federal lands.'' All the while, the House has had a solution in waiting in H.R. 3058, a 4-year reauthorization, but its approval has been stymied by the Democratic leadership, which, for some reason refuses to allow it to come up for a vote. H.R. 3058 languishes while we name post offices, honor sports teams and rename roads. There's time for that, but not time to vote on H.R. 3058. I hope the health of rural America can find a spot somewhere tucked in among those priorities, and that the leadership will allow the House to vote to reauthorize county timber payments.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, more than a year ago I warned this Congress in a series of speeches how its failure to reauthorize and fund county timber payments would hurt the counties of Oregon's Second Congressional District, and that even a 1-year extension in last year's emergency supplemental, while helpful, was not enough to stave off dramatic impacts. Jackson County closed all of its libraries. Some of these libraries now have reopened, but with decreased operating hours at limited locations. During an already difficult economic time, the County has eliminated 117 jobs in roads, parks, human services, public safety and planning. Real services have been cut. Meanwhile, the Natural Resources and Agriculture Committees have discharged H.R. 3058, which is a 4-year reauthorization of county timber payments. But the Democratic leadership in this House has yet to schedule it for a vote. Why? Since January 15, this bill has been eligible for a vote on the House floor. The leadership has found time to name Post Offices and roads and many other things, but not to schedule this important legislation for a vote and keep the Federal Government's commitment to timbered counties. Today I, once again, call on the leadership to schedule a vote on H.R. 3058.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, on April 10, 2008, I was not present to cast a recorded vote on Rollcall No. 182, an amendment offered by Representative Jeff Flake to H.R. 2537, the Beach Protection Act. As you know, in advance of debate on the Flake Amendment, House leadership announced that further consideration of H.R. 2537 would be postponed until the week of April 14th, 2008. Had I been present to vote on the Flake Amendment, I would have voted ``aye.'' I was scheduled to be in Medford, Oregon, for a series of events that began at 8 a.m. on Friday, April 11, 2008, including two economic stimulus tax clinics with senior citizens and a presentation at Jewett Elementary School. This schedule of events required that I travel from Washington, DC, to Medford on the evening of April 10, 2008, prior to the time that the House voted on the Flake Amendment.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay special recognition to someone who has dedicated his adult working life to a career of helping people in Oregon's Second Congressional District, my chief of staff, Brian MacDonald. Brian is one of those rare individuals in this process who puts the needs of others ahead of his own. For new staffers and interns he is the ultimate coach, helping them grow into their jobs, undertake their responsibilities with proper attitude and professionalism and prepare for future opportunities. In short, he cares deeply about the people he works with and works tirelessly to help them be the best they can be. And when it comes to helping Oregonians, I've never worked with anyone who is more dedicated and effective. Forget time zone differences between the east coast and the west coast. Forget what day of the week or weekend it is. When Oregonians call for help, Brian is there, Blackberry in hand, ready to respond. All of us who have the great privilege of serving in the Congress know that we cannot do it alone. Given the enormous volume of incoming requests for assistance, the extraordinary list of complicated issues to understand and vote on, and the sheer confusion of the schedules we keep, it takes a talented team of thoughtful and capable staff to make it all work. Over the course of nearly 10 years as my Chief of Staff, Brian has distinguished himself as one of the best at pulling everyone together and juggling it all successfully. But Brian MacDonald is more than just one of Capitol Hill's finest. He is a caring husband to his wonderful and talented wife Poppy, and a very proud papa to his son Gill and daughter Marley. Before Gill arrived in the world, I remember Brian remarking about how he didn't think the addition of a child would significantly affect his time commitment to his work on the Hill. In fact, he said that because he requires less sleep than most, he didn't foresee many changes at all. To which I suggested the hours he usually set aside for sleep might not be the same ones that his yet-to-be-born son would choose. As the parent of a soon-to-be 18 year-old son, I remembered the days of bottles, diapers and sleepless nights all too well. And, of course, we all know ``the rest of the story.'' Now, in addition to having to juggle the daily flurry of activities in a Congressional office, Brian and his wife have two wonderful children to raise. Madam Speaker, on April 19, 2008, Brian will reach a milestone in his life. He will turn 40. And as much as he would not want anyone to know or celebrate such an occasion, those of us who consider him a dear friend and colleague cannot let this significant--well, historic--mark pass without notice. Therefore, I rise today to both wish him the very best on the occasion of his 40th birthday and to thank him for his friendship, his leadership, and his thoughtfulness. He is truly a trusted friend, a terrific chief of staff, and the living definition of what ``public service'' is all about.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, almost 9 years ago, the Department of the Interior proposed designating Steens Mountain in Harney County, Oregon, as a national monument. This designation would have harmed the cooperative management and preservation successes on the mountain and would have choked the local ranching way of life while allowing little public input into the management process. So I met with the people of Harney County out at Frenchglen, and we challenged then-Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt to let us attempt to write a plan, rather than suffer the consequences of a top-down Federal designation. That would have been a way that would not only preserve the ecological treasure of Steens Mountain but also the way of life out in that part of Oregon. To his credit, Secretary Babbitt allowed for our request. He gave us a shot at coming up with something better, and the residents of Harney County rolled up their sleeves and we all went to work. This effort produced an historic bipartisan, legislative success. Working with State and Federal officials, representatives from the environmental community, my colleagues in the Oregon congressional delegation, the governor and others, we crafted a unique piece of legislation that not only satisfied the environmental concerns, or ``lands legacy'' initiative, of the Clinton administration but also allowed for a way of life to continue on the mountain that has existed for more than 100 years since the first settlers started arriving in this rugged part of the West in the 1800s. Moreover, the bipartisan legislation established an historic agreement between conservation groups and the local ranching community, implemented a unique cooperative management system with oversight by a citizens' advisory council, and among many other things, designated the first grazing-free, cow-free wilderness. The bill was crafted with so much local and bipartisan support that it was approved by the House on voice vote and unanimously by the United States Senate. In the years since, management principles in that legislation have proven that they can work; although it has not always been easy. Unfortunately, many in Harney County who have dedicated much to the successful implementation of the Steens Act worry that Washington, D.C., again may derail the very specific purposes and objectives laid out in that Act. Without consulting the formally recognized stakeholder groups in the region, I'm concerned the underlying legislation would include the Steens in the National Landscape Conservation System. Given my experience in creating the historic Steens Act, I understand the delicate balance between providing additional protection for deserving areas, while also ensuring the opportunities for other, historic uses. That is why I drafted the amendment today to strike the reference of the Steens Act from H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act. The problem is simple. The Steens already has a set of strongly supported, congressionally mandated management purposes and objectives from the 106th Congress. I'm concerned that the Steens Act, specifically noted in this legislation, would give the Steens a duplicative set of management principles that would prove to be bait for unproductive lawsuits. I certainly don't want clauses in H.R. 2016 to be used to upend the delicate balance all parties, including conservation and ranching groups, achieved with the writing and passage of the Steens Act. So, Mr. Chairman, if I might engage in a colloquy, can you assure me and the good people in Harney County that your bill, H.R. 2016, if it becomes law, will not in any way supersede, undermine, or be used as a reason to change any of the purposes established in section 1(b) or the objectives established in section 102(b) of the Steens Act, Public Law 106-399. I yield to my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Chairman Grijalva, I appreciate your commitment to the Steens Act and recognition of all that went into its development and approval by Congress. I thank you for your assurances here today on the floor of the House of Representatives to me and to the people of Harney County and this country. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. You're kidding. Is that actually the case? So they can shoot them, but they can't listen to their cell phone?

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I think, though, it's important for us, too, to talk about the safeguards for American citizens on American soil because I hear that when I go home: Are they listening in when I call my aunt or somebody across the street? This warrantless wire eavesdropping. Can you speak to that, about the protections that are still there and, in fact, strengthened under the Senate version?

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I appreciate that because I think you've summed it up quite well. And once again, for our colleagues who have just joined us, this is all about a 30-year-old law that needs to be updated, because in the last 30 minutes technology has probably changed on us; but think about what's happened in 30 years: There was no Internet available to the public; there were no cell phones; there might have been a car radio phone or something somebody had somewhere. But we're dealing with highly trained, sophisticated terrorist organizations who show no allegiance to any country or rules or conventions, who have proven their will to use whatever force they can muster to attack innocent civilians in America and elsewhere. And we're now covering the eyes and ears of our intelligence professionals and reducing their ability to try to prevent another attack. One of the issues that has come up in this debate, of course, is the participation of the private companies. And I would like to share some information from, again, a letter from the United States Attorney General and the National Intelligence Director where they take on this issue. Because you have to remember that all this stuff is networked. The government doesn't control every phone line and every Internet connection and all of that. You have to have a partnership. And I know after 9/11 the intelligence community and the President said, what do we need to do to work together to make sure we don't get attacked again? Are we going to get attacked again? You remember those days right after 9/11, we had the anthrax attack again here at the Capitol they never have solved. People lost their lives around America. We were really concerned, and rightfully so, that we had missed the big one, and it should never happen again. So they involved the telecommunications companies, because you can't do it without them. Now, the Senate looked at this issue. The Attorney General and the head of National Intelligence wrote back to the chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and said: ``Private party assistance is necessary and critical to ensuring that the intelligence community can collect the information needed to protect our country from attack.'' Pretty strong words. In its report on S. 2248, that's the Senate bill, the Intelligence Committee stated that, and this is from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: ``The intelligence community cannot obtain the intelligence it needs without assistance'' from electronic communication service providers. The committee also concluded that ``without retroactive immunity, the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful government requests in the future without unnecessary court involvement and protracted litigation. The possible reduction in intelligence that might result in this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety of our Nation.'' That's not President Bush and his people saying that. That's the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence headed by J. Rockefeller, a Democrat from West Virginia. The letter goes on to say: ``Senior intelligence officials also have testified regarding the importance of providing liability protection for such companies for this very reason.'' Do you want to do everything in your power in this Congress to safeguard America, not only here at home, but our allies overseas, and probably our men and women whose lives are on the line in the battlefields across the world? Because, you see, they're being threatened by terrorists, too. It is those communications we're trying to also find out where they plan the next car bomb attack. Where do they plan to take down one of our men and women in uniform whom we hold so high? What if their communication happens through the United States? Do we have to spend 72 hours before a court and a judge, and maybe some trial lawyers to boot, to figure out what we can listen in to and how we can act on it?

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I just want to pick up in the timeline where you left off, because then Attorney General Mike Mukasey and the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, the admiral you referenced, head of our national intelligence wrote: ``Our experience in the past few days, since the expiration of the act, demonstrates that these concerns are neither speculative, nor theoretical. Allowing the act to expire without passing the bipartisan Senate bill has had real and negative consequences for our national security. Indeed, this has led directly to a degraded intelligence capability.'' You know, if he testified to that before the 9/11 Commission or any of these commissions that occurred after 9/11, this House and the Senate would have said, my gosh, we've got to make sure we fix that problem. But for some reason, here we are in 2008 and there are some in the leadership who act like we'll just go about our merry way, everything's fine, there won't be a problem. And hopefully there won't be a problem. But, to me, when the Director of National Intelligence says our intelligence capabilities are degraded, we are losing intelligence-gathering abilities, we are at risk, et cetera, et cetera, it is time to act. February 22, 2008. Hon. Silvestre Reyes, Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Reyes: The President asked us to respond to your letter of February 14, 2008, concerning the urgent need to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). Your assertion that there is no harm in allowing the temporary authorities provided by the Protect America Act to expire without enacting the Senate's FISA reform bill is inaccurate and based on a number of misunderstandings concerning our intelligence capabilities. We address those misunderstandings below. We hope that you find this letter helpful and that you will reconsider your opposition to the bill passed last week by a strong bipartisan majority in the Senate and, when Congress returns from its recess, support immediately bringing the Senate bill to the floor, where it enjoys the support of a majority of your fellow members. It is critical to our national security that Congress acts as soon as possible to pass the Senate bill. intelligence collection Our experience since Congress allowed the Protect America Act to expire without passing the bipartisan Senate bill demonstrates why the Nation is now more vulnerable to terrorist attack and other foreign threats. In our letter to Senator Reid on February 5, 2008, we explained that: ``the expiration of the authorities in the Protect America Act would plunge critical intelligence programs into a state of uncertainty which could cause us to delay the gathering of, or simply miss, critical foreign intelligence information.'' That is exactly what has happened since the Protect America Act expired six days ago without enactment of the bipartisan Senate bill. We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress's failure to act. Because of this uncertainty, some partners have reduced cooperation. In particular, they have delayed or refused compliance with our requests to initiate new surveillances of terrorist and other foreign intelligence targets under existing directives issued pursuant to the Protect America Act. Although most partners intend to cooperate for the time being, they have expressed deep misgivings about doing so in light of the uncertainty and have indicated that they may well cease to cooperate if the uncertainty persists. We are working to mitigate these problems and are hopeful that our efforts will be successful. Nevertheless, the broader uncertainty caused by the Act's expiration will persist unless and until the bipartisan Senate bill is passed. This uncertainty may well continue to cause us to miss information that we otherwise would be collecting. Thus, although it is correct that we can continue to conduct certain activities authorized by the Protect America Act for a period of one year from the time they were first authorized, the Act's expiration has and may well continue to adversely affect such activities. Any adverse effects will result in a weakening of critical tools necessary to protect the Nation. As we explained in our letter to Senator Reid, expiration would create uncertainty concerning: The ability to modify certifications and procedures issued under the Protect America Act to reflect operational needs and the implementation of procedures to ensure that agencies are fully integrated protecting the Nation; the continuing validity of liability protection for those who assist us according to the procedures under the Protect America Act; the continuing validity of the judicial mechanism for compelling the assistance of private parties needed to protect our national security; the ability to cover intelligence gaps created by new communication paths or technologies. Our experience in the past few days since the expiration of the Act demonstrates that these concerns are neither speculative nor theoretical: allowing the Act to expire without passing the bipartisan Senate bill has had real and negative consequences for our national security. Indeed, this has led directly to a degraded intelligence capability. It is imperative that our intelligence agencies retain the tools they need to collect vital intelligence information. As we have explained before, the core authorities provided by the Protect America Act have helped us to obtain exactly the type of information we need to keep America safe, and it is essential that Congress reauthorize the Act's core authorities while also extending liability protection to those companies who assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Using the authorities provided in the Protect America Act, we have obtained information about efforts of an individual to become a suicide operative, efforts by terrorists to obtain guns and ammunition, and terrorists transferring money. Other information obtained using the authorities provided by the Protect America Act has led to the disruption of planned terrorist attacks. The bipartisan Senate bill would preserve these core authorities and improve on the Protect America Act in certain critical ways, including by providing liability protection to companies that assisted in defending the country after September 11. In your letter, you assert that the Intelligence Community's ability to protect the Nation has not been weakened, because the Intelligence Community continues to have the ability to conduct surveillance abroad in accordance with Executive Order 12333. We respectfully disagree. Surveillance conducted under Executive Order 12333 in a manner that does not implicate FISA or the Protect America Act is not always as effective, efficient, or safe for our intelligence professionals as acquisitions conducted under the Protect America Act. And, in any event, surveillance under the Protect America Act served as an essential adjunct to our other intelligence tools. This is particularly true in light of the changes since 1978 in the manner in which communications are transmitted. As a result of these changes, the Government often has been required to obtain a FISA Court order prior to surveillance of foreign terrorists and other national security threats located outside the United States. This hampered our intelligence collection targeting these individuals overseas in a way that Congress never intended, and it is what led to the dangerous intelligence gaps last summer. Congress addressed this issue temporarily by passing the Protect America Act but long-term FISA reform is critical to the national security. We have provided Congress with examples in which difficulties with collections under the Executive Order resulted in the Intelligence Community missing crucial information. For instance, one of the September 11th hijackers communicated with a known overseas terrorist facility while he was living in the United States. Because that collection was conducted under Executive Order 12333, the Intelligence Community could not identify the domestic end of the communication prior to September 11, 2001, when it could have stopped that attack. The failure to collect such communications was one of the central criticisms of the Congressional Joint Inquiry that looked into intelligence failures associated with the attacks of September 11. The bipartisan bill passed by the Senate would address such flaws in our capabilities that existed before the enactment of the Protect America Act and that are now resurfacing. We have provided Congress with additional and detailed examples of how the Protect America Act temporarily fixed this problem and have demonstrated the operational need to provide a long- term legislative foundation for these authorities by passing the bipartisan Senate bill. In your letter, you also posit that our intelligence capabilities have not been weakened, because the Government can employ the outdated provisions of FISA as they existed before the Protect America Act. We respectfully disagree. It was that very framework that created dangerous intelligence gaps in the past and that led Congress to pass the Protect America Act last summer. As we have explained in letters, briefings and hearings, FISA's requirements, unlike those of the Protect America Act and the bipartisan Senate bill, impair our ability to collect information on foreign intelligence targets located overseas. Most importantly, FISA was designed to govern foreign intelligence surveillance of persons in the United States and therefore requires a showing of ``probable cause'' before such surveillance can begin. This standard makes sense in the context of targeting persons in the United States for surveillance, where the Fourth Amendment itself often requires probable cause and where the civil liberties of Americans are most implicated. But it makes no sense to require a showing of probable cause for surveillance of overseas foreign targets who are not entitled to the Fourth Amendment protections guaranteed by our Constitution. Put simply, imposing this requirement in the context of surveillance of foreign targets located overseas results in the loss of potentially vital intelligence by, for example, delaying intelligence collection and thereby losing some intelligence forever. In addition, the requirement to make such a showing requires us to divert our linguists and analysts covering al-Qa'ida and other foreign threats from their core role--protecting the Nation--to the task of providing detailed facts for FISA Court applications related to surveillance of such foreign targets. Our intelligence professionals need to be able to obtain foreign intelligence from foreign targets with speed and agility. If we revert to a legal framework in which the Intelligence Community needs to make probable cause showings for foreign terrorists and other national security threats located overseas, we are certain to experience more intelligence gaps and miss collecting information. You imply that the emergency authorization process under FISA is an adequate substitute for the legislative authorities that have lapsed. This assertion reflects a basic misunderstanding about FISA's emergency authorization provisions. Specifically, you assert that the National Security Agency (NSA) or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) ``may begin surveillance immediately'' in an emergency situation. FISA requires far more, and it would be illegal to proceed as you suggest. Before surveillance begins the Attorney General must determine that there is probable cause that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power and that FISA's other requirements are met. As explained above, the process of compiling the facts necessary for such a determination and preparing applications for emergency authorizations takes time and results in delays. Again, it makes no sense to impose this requirement in the context of foreign intelligence surveillance of targets located overseas. Because of the hurdles under FISA's emergency authorization provisions and the requirement to go to the FISA Court within 72 hours, our resource constraints limit our use of emergency authorizations to certain high-priority circumstances and cannot simply be employed for every foreign intelligence target. It is also inaccurate to state that because Congress has amended FISA several times, there is no need to modernize FISA. This statement runs counter to the very basis for Congress's passage last August of the Protect America Act. It was not until the passage of this Act that Congress amended those provisions of FISA that had become outdated due to the communications revolution we have experienced since 1978. As we explained, those outdated provisions resulted in dangerous intelligence gaps by causing constitutional protections to be extended to foreign terrorists overseas. It is critical that Congress enact long-term FISA modernization to ensure that the Intelligence Community can collect effectively the foreign intelligence information it needs to protect the Nation. The bill passed by the Senate would achieve this goal, while safeguarding the privacy interests of Americans. liability protection Your assertion that the failure to provide liability protection for those private-sector firms that helped defend the Nation after the September 11 attacks does not affect our intelligence collection capability is inaccurate and contrary to the experience of intelligence professionals and to the conclusions the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reached after careful study of the matter. It also ignores that providing liability protection to those companies sued for answering their country's call for assistance in the aftermath of September 11 is simply the right thing to do. Through briefings and documents, we have provided the members of your committee with access to the information that shows that immunity is the fair and just result. Private party assistance is necessary and critical to ensuring that the Intelligence Community can collect the information needed to protect our country from attack. In its report on S. 2248, the Intelligence Committee stated that ``the intelligence community cannot obtain the intelligence it needs without assistance'' from electronic communication service providers. The Committee also concluded that ``without retroactive immunity, the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful Government requests in the future without unnecessary court involvement and protracted litigation. The possible reduction in intelligence that might result from this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety of our Nation.'' Senior intelligence officials also have testified regarding the importance of providing liability protection to such companies for this very reason. Even prior to the expiration of the Protect America Act, we experienced significant difficulties in working with the private sector because of the continued failure to provide liability protection for such companies. These difficulties have only grown since expiration of the Act without passage of the bipartisan Senate bill, which would provide fair and just liability protection. Exposing the private sector to the continued risk of billion-dollar class action suits for assisting in efforts to defend the country understandably makes the private sector much more reluctant to cooperate. Without their cooperation, our efforts to protect the country cannot succeed. pending legislation Finally, as you note, the House passed a bill in November to amend FISA, but we immediately made clear that the bill is unworkable and unacceptable. Over three months ago, the Administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) that stated that the House bill ``falls far short of providing the Intelligence Community with the tools it needs to collect effectively the foreign intelligence information vital for the security of the Nation'' and that ``the Director of National Intelligence and the President's other senior advisers would recommend that the President veto the bill.'' We adhere to that view today. The House bill has several grave deficiencies. First, although numerous senior intelligence officials have testified regarding the importance of affording liability protection for companies that assisted the Government in the aftermath of September 11, the House bill does not address the critical issue of liability protection. Second, the House bill contains certain provisions and serious technical flaws that would fatally undermine our ability to collect effectively the intelligence needed to protect the Nation. In contrast, the Senate bill deals with the issue of liability protection in a way that is fair and that protects the national security. In addition, the Senate bill is carefully drafted and has been amended to avoid technical flaws similar to the ones in the House bill. We note that the privacy protections for Americans in the Senate bill exceed the protections contained in both the Protect America Act and the House bill. The Department of Justice and the Intelligence Community are taking the steps we can to try to keep the country safe during this current period of uncertainty. These measures are remedial at best, however, and do not provide the tools our intelligence professionals need to protect the Nation or the certainty needed by our intelligence professionals and our private partners. The Senate passed a strong and balanced bill by an overwhelming and bipartisan margin. That bill would modernize FISA, ensure the future cooperation of the private sector, and guard the civil liberties we value. We hope that you will support giving your fellow members the chance to vote on this bill. Sincerely, J.M. McConnell, Director of National Intelligence.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. He said what?

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. You raised an interesting point about this sort of smoke-and-mirrors argument of how quickly the FISA Court can act on a surveillance order. The Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, was quoted as saying in a statement on FISA negotiations on February 22, ``The FISA Court can approve surveillance orders quickly.'' But I think what I learned tonight from you is that while that may be the case, they don't get that request until somebody's built up the whole probable cause work; right?

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I appreciate my colleague's comments. I think you have laid out very clearly the problems that we face, and I couldn't agree more. You know, I will always remember being on these grounds of the United States Capitol on the morning of 9/11, September 11, 2001, and the attacks that occurred on our country, and I will always remember going back to the apartment I lived in at the time, three blocks from the Pentagon, and the smoke from the burning roof of the Pentagon wafted in all day because the air-conditioning was on. I swore then, and I have kept that pledge and promise, that I would never forget what happened to this country. And like you and many of my colleagues on this floor and in this Congress, we said, How could this happen? What went wrong? What was the failure? How did we miss seeing this coming? As my colleague from New Mexico knows all too well, because you are on the Intelligence Committee and I'm not, there are lots of investigations. And we said we will never let this happen. We brought in the outside experts, the best people in the land: tactical experts, policy experts. We did reviews, we second-guessed everybody in every position, and we changed the law. We changed the law to protect the lives of Americans and to prevent attack. It is sad today to be here on this floor 10 days after the Protect America Act has expired and know that the only people who are gleeful about that are probably residing in caves and camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan and who knows where else. They have to be looking at us saying, What fools, and thank you, thank you for opening the door and closing your eyes and your ears to our communications because you won't modernize a law that is anchored back in the 1970s. Technology, as you have clearly pointed out, has changed. You think about these kids who buy these cell phones that are throw-away. Or if you are on the Internet, how do you know where somebody is or where they're downloading or wherever? Technology has changed; the law hasn't. And the people who seek to do our country and our people and our allies harm, they understand technology. That's one of the lessons we learned coming out of 9/11. And so many people on both sides of the aisle changed a lot of Federal laws to try to leap forward so that we would be protected, so that our professionals, the intelligence community, would have every tool and asset to make sure it never happened again. How many people on this floor, how many Americans pledged after 9/11 to say we will do whatever it takes to make sure innocent American lives are never taken down by terrorists again? We all said that. I was in briefings on this floor, closed door, open door, where there was that unified feeling that we've just got to get with it. We've got to figure it out. It's terrible tonight to be here knowing this law has expired and that there is a bipartisan fix. Senator Rockefeller, who chairs the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, wrote the bipartisan measure that passed with 68 votes. More than two-thirds of the United States Senate supported this bipartisan fix that provides Americans more protection than the existing law, or certainly the bill that the House had. Now, I dare say on some matters Mr. Rockefeller is no friend of President Bush's, as he would probably tell you that. He certainly said it publicly. But he knows in the crafting of this bill that America has got to come first, our intelligence gathering has to come first. There are privacy protections, but we don't close the eyes and ears of our intelligence community listening overseas to see who's plotting to do us harm. That bill, I dare say, if brought to this floor, would pass in a heartbeat. Pass in a heartbeat. And if I might just quote from a letter to the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from both the Attorney General and Admiral McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, said, among other things, this is a letter dated February 22: Our experience since Congress allowed the Protect America Act to expire without passing the bipartisan Senate bill demonstrates why the Nation is now more vulnerable to terrorist attack and other foreign threats. In our letter to Senator Reid on February 5, 2008, we explained that the expiration of the authorities in the Protect America Act would plunge critical intelligence programs into a state of uncertainty which could cause us to delay the gathering of or simply miss critical foreign intelligence information. Underlining for emphasis, they write: That is exactly what has happened since the Protect America Act expired 6 days ago without enactment of the bipartisan Senate bill. We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress's failure to act.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, the thing that strikes me is, before we went out for the President's district work period, this Congress had time to spend a full day trying to figure out whether Roger Clemens was on steroids, used steroids, used human growth enhancement, whatever, and this Congress couldn't take up this law to protect America. And I dare say to my colleague and to my fellow colleagues, that if we were, God forbid, to get attacked again, that every committee will grab jurisdiction around here to do an oversight hearing to find out who failed. They need to pick up a mirror and look in it before it happens and ask that question. Will we fail America's security? Or will we take a bill that passed by two-thirds majority plus 2 in the Senate and put it on this floor today, tomorrow, as soon as possible? There is nothing even scheduled for Thursday of this week, I see. There are no bills scheduled. We have plenty of time. It is available. Why? For the life of me, I don't understand why we take this risk.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a very special public servant of extraordinary ability and dedication, Crater Lake National Park Superintendent Chuck Lundy. This weekend I will attend in picturesque Klamath County, Oregon, a celebration in honor of Superintendent Lundy's retirement after 33 years of exemplary service to the National Park Service and millions of park visitors from around the world. As Superintendent Lundy officially hangs up his Park Service ranger hat for the last time, I want to share with you, Madam Speaker, and our colleagues some background about this special leader. Chuck Lundy was raised in the small farming town of Swartz Creek, Michigan, which cemented early in his life his affinity for rural areas and the natural beauty of our open spaces. Chuck's parents instilled in him at an early age the virtues of public service and hard work. His father, Frank, served in the U.S. Marine Corps and was a decorated veteran of the Pacific Campaign, and sustained serious wounds on the initial landing at Iwo Jima. Chuck himself enlisted and served in the U.S. Air Force from 1967-1971, and then graduated second in his class from Northern Arizona University with summa cum laude honors. Chuck actually began his professional career while still in college as a seasonal park ranger. After graduating, Chuck continued what ultimately would be a tremendous 33-year career of service in the National Park Service which concluded with nearly 10 years as Superintendent of Crater Lake National Park, which I'm proud to represent in Congress. During the course of Chuck's career at many national parks and monuments, he was presented many challenges and opportunities. It is well known among his peers, supervisors and local community leaders that each time Chuck accepted a new assignment, he left his prior one having solidly achieved the guiding principle of the Park Service: ``Leave the Park better than you found it''. I can personally attest to the amazing progress made at Crater Lake National Park under Chuck's leadership, and I believe there is not a more dedicated or capable steward of our natural gems in the National Park Service than Chuck Lundy. In November of 1998, Chuck came to Crater Lake National Park as Superintendent. This is the same month I was first elected to Congress. As an avid park and outdoor recreation enthusiast myself, and having secured a seat on the Resources Committee my first term in the House, Chuck and I had the opportunity to work closely together early on. We became fast friends as Chuck constantly kept me posted on his vision to bring resources for the public to Crater Lake, one of the most spectacular natural wonders in the world. President Theodore Roosevelt in 1902 signed the bill into law giving Crater Lake national park status. Crater Lake is located in southern Oregon on the crest of the Cascade Mountain range and it lies in a caldera, or volcanic basin, created when the 12,000 foot high Mt. Mazama collapsed 7,700 years ago following a massive eruption. It is a place of immeasurable beauty, and an outstanding outdoor laboratory and classroom. At 1,943 feet deep, it is the deepest lake in the United States. At Crater Lake, Chuck had a great ``product'' to offer and showcase to the public, but maximizing the financial resources and procedural challenges to provide the public the best experience possible at an affordable price while still preserving this natural gem was no small task. Chuck's creativity, thoughtfulness and dedication to addressing all of these aspects resulted in great success. The list of major developments under Chuck's watch at Crater Lake is a long one, I'd like to note just a few of them: a fantastic Centennial Celebration for the park in 2002, which provided the springboard to launch the Crater Lake Trust, the park's distinguished philanthropic group; the creation of the Crater Lake license plate, a smashing success that led to the creation of a multi-million dollar endowment fund to support future operations at the park's new Science and Learning Center; keeping the Rim Redevelopment Project moving to relocate the parking lot away from close proximity to the lake along with beautiful architectural improvements; completion of an incredibly accurate bathymetry, map of the lake, which yields tremendous insights into the eruption of Mt. Mazama and the formation of the lake; and completion of a progressive general management plan for the park to replace a nearly 30-year-old predecessor. Chuck would deflect praise for these substantial accomplishments to others, and while he has benefited from the support of many great people, these successes would not have reached the heights they have without Chuck's leadership and deep involvement. My colleagues, Superintendent Chuck Lundy has been a tremendous servant to the National Park Service and the millions of people who enjoy our parks and monuments. On behalf of our country, I thank Chuck for all that he has done. Chuck will be sorely missed, and I wish him and the entire Lundy family many happy years to come.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I think it is important to start by noting there is not, I don't think, a Member on either side of the aisle that doesn't support continuing the existing SCHIP program, continuing providing insurance coverage for 4.04 million American children. What we're debating is how you pay for an expansion beyond that, how you go from 200 percent of poverty level to a family of four that would be at 300 percent of poverty level. For the record, that's $61,950. Some of us believe that before you expand to 300 percent of poverty, or a family of four making nearly $62,000 a year, we should make sure that those kids who are in families that make enough that they don't qualify for Medicaid, that those from there on up to 200 or 250 percent of poverty actually are being insured by the States to whom we send this money back to. There has been discussion that 10 million kids will be covered under the bill that the President vetoed. I wish somebody would give me a Congressional Budget Office summary that says that, because what CBO found when they analyzed this bill was that by 2012 there would be a total of 7.4 million kids insured under SCHIP under the bill we're debating tonight. If you've got a different document from CBO, I'd love see it. I've not seen it. Further, CBO claims that the way this bill is structured, there would be 2 million children in America, 2 million of this 7.4 that either already have health insurance or have access to health insurance through their families or their families' employers. Two million. This is Congressional Budget Office data. The effect of the way this bill is structured, those 2 million kids would probably be shifted onto a government plan. We ought to be trying to get kids who don't have access to health insurance first, and we should be trying to get the kids who are at the lower end of the economic scale insured first. Those are principles that we're fighting for in this. Finally, two other points. I don't think it's asking too much that when a parent brings in their children and their children don't have ID, that the parent simply present ID, a driver's license, something that proves who they are when they certify these are their kids. That's something we're asking for. The third and final point, this program, the way it's crafted under this legislation, even with the tax that's proposed, by the next 10 years, the end of 10 years, you have borrowed forward $80 billion, with a B, that has been borrowed, and in 2013, the program's out of money. We have got enough of those Federal programs today. I mean Members on both sides of the aisle would have to agree that we haven't fixed the Medicare fix yet for docs. Their funding is going to be cut. I've got seniors in my district who can't get access to a physician. Why would we enact a program today that we know, based on independent analysis, comes up $80 billion short? You take the money for 10 years and you spend it in the first 5. What happens after that? Isn't it better to create a program that takes care of kids who are on the lowest end of the economic scale but whose parents make too much to be in Medicaid, make sure they're covered first, make sure we're not crowding out people who have access to health insurance for their kids through their employer or some other way, and that they don't shift to save money for themselves from a government-run program? At the end of the day, I think we all want to take care of kids' health needs. We want to do it in a responsible way, fiscally responsible, that can be sustainable so that we don't end up with kids on a cliff in 5 years because you spent the money that was allocated over 10 in the first 5 because you borrowed. That doesn't make sense. I never knowingly in 21 years in small business entered into a contract that I knew I couldn't fulfill. This is a contract that can't be fulfilled the way it is crafted. We can do better than this. It doesn't have to be a campaign and political issue. It can be a policy issue that works.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I rise today to tell you about a very significant event taking place in Lakeview, OR, today. Because this event is the culmination of unselfish hard work by a dedicated group who shared a vision of a better tomorrow for Lake County, I am very proud to stand to tell you that a model for future management of our natural resources is becoming a reality today. Three Saturdays ago, I traveled to Lakeview to tour a visionary effort, the Lakeview Biomass Project, which has become the talk of energy and natural resource organizations throughout the Nation. The dedicated people behind the Lakeview Biomass Project have found an innovative way to move us swiftly in the direction toward our rich national heritage of healthy forests, vibrant local economies, and energy independence. As our forests become choked and overgrown to the point that they are being decimated by fire and insect infestations, the people in Lake County made a decision to reverse that downward spiral through an amazing partnership of business, Federal and State agencies, and the local community. Madam Speaker, the word ``synergy'' has been used for years as a buzzword to denote a process that creates a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. This is certainly the case in Lakeview. Although their concept was innovative, it was also founded on plain old Eastern Oregon common sense. At the risk of minimizing the massive scope of the effort that went into this project, let me boil it down to its simplest elements. Brush and small diameter trees will be taken out of the local forests in the process of making them healthier and fire resilient. That material will either be cleanly burned in a plant that produces steam and electricity or milled into dimension lumber at the Collins Fremont Sawmill. The steam will heat the mill's kiln dryer and will turn the turbines of the generator. Jobs at the mill will be more secure, and new jobs will be generated to operate the biomass plant and to treat our forests. Madam Speaker, I toured the new mill and was very enthused to see that small trees that likely would have burned in inevitable catastrophic wildfires can now be put to clean and productive use through state-of-the-art technology. I salute the Collins family for their vision and for their unflagging support of the Lakeview area in making a significant investment in the future, at a time when lumber producers throughout the Northwest have gone out of business. I am very impressed with Marubeni Sustainable Energy for their commitment to build a 13 megawatt plant at the site of the mill at a cost of over $30 million. My colleagues will be pleased to know that the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management participated extensively in this process and worked with Lake County Resources Initiative to provide a 10-year supply through stewardship contracting, and they are working toward a 20-year memorandum of understanding that will pave the way for productive use well into the future. Madam Speaker, you can take pride in knowing that the energy incentives provided by this body and signed by the President have been a significant stimulus in making this concept work. There are so many people to recognize for this success, but certainly I must mention the Lake County Commissioners who were so very proud to show me this project earlier this month. Jim Walls of the Lake County Resource Initiative has been tireless in his efforts to move this project forward. My friend, Governor Ted Kulongoski, saw the merit of this project early on and designated it as an Oregon Solutions Project that brought all of the stakeholders together and, with the direction of Steve Greenwood, kept the focus on target. Hal Salwasser of Oregon State University served as the driving force in his role as convener. I also want to acknowledge local leaders in the environmental movement who have worked hard to develop a project that will have a long term beneficial impact on our federal forests. I know, Madam Speaker, that time allows me to only mention a few of the many who made this project a success, but the most exciting part of the whole story is that this is just the beginning. The City of Lakeview and Lake County are hard at work at putting other renewable sources of energy to work. They plan to expand on their already successful use of geothermal and are working toward solar generation at a former Air Force radar site in the small community of Christmas Valley. We can all take pride in knowing that communities like Lakeview are taking their destiny into their own hands and creating models for the future that can sustain both Northwest communities and forests.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with you and my colleagues the story of a remarkable woman and leader from eastern Oregon, Sharon Livingston. Sharon is the President of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association and a tremendous friend to rural America. When this week draws to a close, so too will Sharon's tenure as president. Before that occurs, I want to pay tribute to Sharon for the contributions she has made to an outstanding industry. Sharon embodies the best in rural Oregon frontier women; she loves the land, she embraces the Oregon ``can do'' spirit, and she values the dignity of everyone she meets. Sharon is a patriot with unflagging pride in her country. She is a great steward of the land, proud of her industry, and intent on doggedly defending the private property rights, water rights, and grazing rights of ranchers. Sharon leads her industry with assertiveness and kindness, always mindful that the American rancher raises the healthiest and highest quality beef in the world. She, like her fellow Oregon beef producers, places a very high priority on providing food of unsurpassed quality for dinning room tables around the world. Sharon's strong values were established at an early age, having grown up in the small community of Long Creek, OR, where she has lived for more than 60 years. The first three years of her life were spent living in a 2-room house on her grandmother's homestead. The water source for their house was a spring outside the front door and a path led to the bathroom, That property is still a part of her ranch and she values it far beyond the price it might bring on the open market. Madam Speaker, in addition to being a lifelong rancher, Sharon Livingston has also been a teacher and a coach, graduating from Eastern Oregon University following 12 years of school in Long Creek. As a teacher and coach, her skills as a trainer and motivator became her strengths as a leader in the ranching industry. She always does her homework, she works hard to understand complex issues, and she is adept at helping others to grasp the need to go in new directions. When I was in Burns, OR this summer to meet with ranchers who had their grazing land obliterated by devastating wildfires, Sharon was there to offer encouragement and to ensure that the needed relief was on its way. As you can imagine, Madam Speaker, with livelihoods in serious jeopardy, emotions can run high. Sharon was there as a voice of reason and a message of hope. She made a difference. Her straightforward ways, her openness, and her confidence in the future helped immensely to set us all at ease about dealing with the effects of the catastrophic fire. Her pride in her industry and her community is strong and deep, but she would tell you that her greatest pride and greatest joy is derived from her family. Tragically, she lost her husband, Fred Livingston, to cancer in 1992. Sharon married Fred in 1957. Sharon gives him high praise when she describes Fred as a cowboy, a calf roper, and a fine man. Sharon and Fred raised three children: Rilla, Clayton, and Fred John (FJ). Rilla and Clayton live in the Pendleton area, and FJ is Sharon's partner on the ranch. Sharon has four grandchildren whom she treasures. Sharon loves her ranch, her cattle, and her horses. She says that her heart swells with pride when her oldest grandson rides and helps with the cattle. She takes great joy and satisfaction seeing yet another generation value the lifestyle that has meant so much to her. She looks forward to the very near future when her twin granddaughters and another grandson learn to ride and rope. You can be sure that Sharon will be there to teach them. Madam Speaker, I am so proud of my friend, Sharon Livingston. She is a woman of her word and a woman of conviction. You only have to meet Sharon once to know that she has a keen intellect and a caring heart that makes her a natural born leader. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting this amazing woman who has served so ably as president of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the citizens of Crook County, Oregon who are celebrating the 125th anniversary of the establishment of their county this month. The Enabling Act, creating Crook County from the southern portions of Wasco County, was approved and signed by the Governor of Oregon on October 24, 1882. He appointed 10 officials to govern the county: County Judge; 2 Commissioners; Assessor; County Clerk; Coroner; School Superintendent; Sheriff; Surveyor; and Treasurer. Prineville, the county seat, is the oldest community in Central Oregon. In 1868 Barney Prine came to the Crooked River Valley and set up a blacksmith shop, saloon, and primitive country store along the banks of the Crooked River, A Post Office was established in 1871 and was named Prine in Barney's honor. The name of the Post Office was changed to Prineville in 1872. The county is named after Major General George Crook, U.S. Army. General Crook was an 1852 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, a hero of the Snake Indian Wars, and, at the time of his death in 1890, was Commander of the Army's Department of the West. When it was founded in 1882, Crook County encompassed an area of 8,600 square miles and had a population of only 2,500. In 1914 and 1916 Jefferson and Deschutes counties were carved out of Crook County leaving it at just under 3,000 square miles today, with a population of approximately 23,000. Some of the more noteworthy events in the county's early history include: the building of the first county courthouse in the county seat of Prineville at a cost of $5,474 in 1886; the first electrical service in Prineville in 1890; the first telephone service in the county in 1899; the opening of the first high school in 1905; and the first movie theater in 1909. Between 1930 and 1940 Prineville became the nation's largest shipping point of pine lumber; in 1934 the Prineville Airport was dedicated; in 1940 the first dial telephones were installed in the county; and in 1952 the late Les Schwab opened his first tire store in Prineville, the very beginning of what is now one of the leading independent tire dealerships in the country with more that 7,000 employees and 400 stores throughout the western United States. Today, Madam Speaker, the citizens of Crook County celebrate 125 years of rich pioneer heritage in their Central Oregon home, and look forward to an increasingly bright future in a growing and revitalized county. I am proud to represent the citizens of Crook County in the U.S. House of Representatives, and look forward to county's continued success.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Well, there are two things. One on the forest side. Let me take that first, and then I'll talk about county payments. You're right. I always figured people sent us back here not because of our party label and we're only supposed to use that; they sent us back here to solve problems. And that's how I've tried to approach this, and that's why on the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, it was bipartisan when it passed this House, although the leadership in place today, from the Speaker all the way to the subcommittee chairman, opposed that bill, the bill that passed bipartisanly, unanimously in the Senate in its final form. They voted against it. But that's law and that's worked. We need to pass a version similar to the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act so that we can go in and clean up after these fires and use the burned, dead trees while they still have value; create jobs in our community. Then we won't need these Federal payments after all if we better manage the forests. We need to increase the allowable cut in our forests so that we can generate jobs and so that we can harvest wood here legally for our uses rather than buy our wood products manufactured overseas from illegally logged forests that are being wiped out in places like Burma and Malaysia and Indonesia and Russia and China where they may have laws on the books and they're completely unenforced. So, as a result, we all gleefully go to the local furniture store and buy this furniture that's made from wood that was illegally harvested, while our forests burned, and we don't even recover the burned, dead trees. So we need to deal with that issue. And we need to take into account some terrific research out of the forest service about the change in temperature that's occurring and how the forests are going to move north, but it will take them 10,000 years to catch up with the temperature that should change in about 100 years, if all their data is correct, and I know some of that still needs to be worked out. So, finally, on the issue of county payments, first I think the first day of this session my colleague Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon, and I, as we did the prior session, introduced legislation with you and others to reauthorize the county payments law. That partnership needs to be kept. That promise needs to be kept, regardless of who carries the gavels around here. And it's taken until just a week or so ago to get it out of the first committee. It still has an Ag Committee referral on it, and it's yet to come to this floor. We should be bringing that to the floor and voting it up and down and moving it to the Senate or they should be sending us a bill. But right now, it appears to be, I don't know, held up, and that's not good for our children. It's not good for our libraries, not good for our first responders. It's not good for our county roads. These school districts in some States have to send their layout notices out in March to tell teachers whether or not they're going to have the money for the following year. As you know, this year that happened in some school districts.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. I appreciate your work on the issues we have worked on in the past. The California fires are tragic in what is happening to the people who live there, the loss of life, the loss of habitat, the pollution that is going into the air. I have been told that the California wildfires have burned the equivalent of 10 times the square mileage of the District of Columbia. Ten times the size of the District of Columbia has gone up in smoke in California so far. In my district in Oregon this year, 11 times the size of the District of Columbia has gone up in fire. Now fortunately we have not seen the loss of life and we haven't seen the loss of homes. But what we have seen is the loss of land for grazing and habitat and clean water as our watersheds have gone up in smoke. This picture here I brought down to the floor for my colleagues to see. It is of two young children who are from Harney County, Oregon. This is the Egley fire which burned in my district 140,000 acres; 140,000 acres, the Egley fire burned in Harney County. America's forest lands going up in smoke. There are 192 million acres of national forest system lands. According to the Forest Service, 52 million of those acres are at high risk to catastrophic wildfires. Twelve million acres in Oregon are considered high risk; 26 million acres, or just under the size of the State of Kentucky, are at risk to insect infestation. You have to understand that our forests are not static. They continue to grow and suffer bug infestation, drought devastation, and ultimately fire. The total net national forest growth in the United States is currently about 20 billion board feet a year. Total mortality is about 10 billion board feet. So our forests are expanding at 20 billion board feet a year, America's federally owned forests, and 10 billion board feet die. We harvest less than 2 billion board feet. That is part of our topic today, the lack of active management in our Federal forests. I want to show you what happens on a watershed. This is up in northeastern Oregon. In 1989, the Tanner Gulch fire wiped out the spring Chinook salmon run in Oregon's Upper Grand Ronde River. This used to be habitat for salmon. There was a creek that ran along here. Unfortunately, it is just mud and sludge and debris and blackened trees and ashen slopes. Now in an extreme fire, scientists tell us that the most catastrophic fire that occurs in our forests emits about 100 tons of carbon and greenhouse gases. For those concerned about trying to do something about carbon emissions in our atmosphere and trying to reduce other pollutants in our atmosphere, we need to do something to manage our forests better to prevent these catastrophic fires. That is on the extreme, the 100 tons per acre. A healthy green forest will sequester between 4 and 6 tons of carbon per acre. So these are the choices we are facing: How do you manage the forests for better forest health, for reduced fire and reduced fire intensity, and get them back into balance with nature. My colleague from Utah said what do you do about that. Well, a few years ago we passed the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. It was bipartisan in its nature and scope. It was designed to allow Federal agencies, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management, to more rapidly, while still involving the public, go in and do the kind of thinning and debris removal to address this issue of the overgrown forests you heard me mention, the 20 billion board feet a year that grows in our forests and the 10 billion that dies, so we can go in, especially in the wildland-urban interface, near communities where homes are, the kind of homes we see burning today, although they are not necessarily in a Federal forest, but it is a similar concept. So to be able to go in quickly and have scientifically proven plans, based on community wildfire plans, in many cases, to go in and remove that debris and reduce that fire hazard. That legislation which I coauthored with former Representative Scott McInnis from Colorado and Senator Feinstein and Senator Wyden were both very much involved, has worked in many cases, especially the community wildfire planning piece because that piece brought diverse groups together, environmentalists, community leaders, firefighters. We have a group here from Bend who have been on the forefront of this very effort, firefighters from my own district. They came together and developed plans on how do we safeguard the communities and the things we really want to protect, our watersheds and habitat. They came together, and now they can even more quickly implement those community wildfire plans. The problem we face in this Congress is virtually every Member of the leadership of this Congress voted ``no'' on the final conference report that passed the Senate unanimously, and that includes the Speaker, majority leader, the caucus chairman, the Resources Committee chairman, the subcommittee chairman, and the Rules Committee chairwoman all voted against the Healthy Forest Restoration Act conference report. This is what we worked out with the Senate. It passed and became law. We now have these community wildfire plans in place. We need to continue to work and expand them elsewhere. It is so important. So far this year in America's forests and grasslands on Federal land, more than 8 million acres have burned. We are setting records. This is down a little bit from last year, but over the last few years, we are at record levels. American taxpayers have spent $1.22 billion fighting fires, and that is before these awful fires in California have broken out. So it is very expensive when we don't manage properly and have fires break out. Let me tell you what has happened. In my district, it is 70,000 square miles of eastern Oregon. It is beautiful. We have nine national forests there. We have national grasslands. We have wilderness areas. We have Crater Lake National Park and high desert plateaus, wheat land, and we have had all these fires. They have destroyed communities and many homes in the past. They have inflicted death. They have burned, and it takes years to recover. In fact, we have cattle ranchers in central and eastern Oregon who may be off their allotments for 2 years because it will take that long for the range to recover from fires that, frankly, shouldn't have gotten so out of hand if we had done the right management to begin with. In the meantime, the infrastructure that needs to be there for our scientists and professional forest managers to conduct this forest thinning is going away because, you see, the allowable harvest of timber off Federal land has declined in my part of the world by 80 percent, 80 percent reduction. And with it, the timber receipts to these communities. So this chart going back to 1976 shows the various timber receipt levels. And you get out here, and you see there is virtually no revenue coming off our Federal land, revenue that used to help pay for restoration work, that used to help pay for conservation efforts, that used to help pay for parks and other things, the activities people like to do when they recreate. And, most importantly, revenues that used to be shared with the local counties to fund their schools and their roads. In the largest county in my district, Jackson County, this year because timber receipts are virtually eliminated, and because the county replacement program was stalled in its reauthorization, which is fundamentally flawed in my opinion, they had to close all the libraries. This is not some thousand-person county. This is largest populated county in my district. Every library had to close. Another county down on the south Oregon coast, they were looking at declaring bankruptcy. Another was going to have to lay off all their sheriff's deputies except those mandated by State law to run the jail to provide security because this Congress hasn't passed the Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization. I would hope that could be brought to the floor and passed so that those of us in the West, and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) has a wonderful map showing Federal land ownership, but where most of the Federal lands are in the West, my district is over half Federal land. And it is important. When Teddy Roosevelt created the national forest reserves in 1905, he said it needs to be a partnership with the communities in the management of these lands and in the revenues that are shared, and these lands need to be properly managed. I think he would roll over in his grave today if he knew what had happened in terms of the disassociation with the communities, in terms of the bug-infested nature of our forests, the droughts that have occurred that have left them distressed, and the disease that has come in, and then how they burn. And then we leave them. In the last Congress, I wrote, and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), a Democrat, former Sierra Club chapter president, helped me write the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act. So we, like private forest landowners and State forest landowners and county forest landowners and others, could get in right after a fire, take out where appropriate, where environmentally appropriate, in sensitive ways the dead trees that still have value, create the jobs, recover the wood, and replant sooner. We passed it in this House, big bipartisan margin to pass it. It went up on the rocks in the great graveyard we call the Senate, where all good ideas go to founder and die, and it did. The fires in California, fires in my district, the fact that forests continue to grow exponentially, global climate change means they're going to be more under threat from higher temperature and, therefore, more drought and more bug infestation, more disease and more fire. This Congress, this country needs to adopt new policies.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Well, we need to pass the legislation that's just come out of the Natural Resources Committee that would reauthorize the program that shared receipts or made up for the receipts that no longer are being generated with the county roads and schools. That legislation, and you are the ranking member on the subcommittee, worked very hard to make sure it's properly crafted, would provide for replacement revenue because, you see, that partnership shouldn't be broken, that promise shouldn't be shattered. Communities where there are Federal lands, especially timbered communities, that have no real other ability to have an economic base in some cases, and yet, and I diverge a little here, but yet are still responsible when somebody's lost. Who's out there doing the recovery? The sheriff, out of the county. We've seen that tragically in my district, in my State, with the Kim family that was lost in southern Oregon. Family went out for a drive, got snowed in on a road, and the father died, and I believe the child and mother survived after several days. A number of climbers on Mt. Hood fell to their death. Their bodies have yet to be recovered from last year. I was down in central Oregon and southern Oregon where sheriffs are out in the forests dealing with organized crime elements that have moved in to grow marijuana in highly sophisticated, generally Mexican, drug trafficking organizations, highly armed, very sophisticated. It's our sheriffs that are going in and trying and their deputies to deal with these issues. So these costs of recovery, of rescue, of dealing with law enforcement issues on Federal ground are borne in large measure by the counties. And yet when you stop doing productive work on our national forests and they continue to grow and die at the same time, you don't have the revenue; yet, you still have greater and greater demand, people moving in to the wild land urban interface. So this Congress gave us a 1-year reprieve in the emergency supplemental this spring. We need to reauthorize the county payments program for another 5 years, at a minimum, and we need to keep the Federal Government's commitment. If we're not going to do that, then we need to. And we probably need to do this anyway, frankly, get in with a new strategy on how to manage forests. Now, I'm told in Canada where bugs have wiped out the lodgepole pine, the Canadian Government has come in and said actively get in there, take out the dead trees and let's get new forests going quickly. And they are rapidly clearing out the dead trees and starting new forests. Our alternative here appears to be let it burn, let it rot, and 100 years from now we'll come back and take a look. I don't think that's the kind of stewardship Teddy Roosevelt had in mind when he talked about the great forest reserves and their use for water, for agriculture, and wood for home building. If you go back and read his speeches when he was creating these reserves; he wanted this long-term look at management of this wonderful resource we have.