Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I join the Congressman from Indiana, my friend from Indiana, Mike Pence, in asking our colleagues to sign the discharge petition today to bring the Broadcast Freedom Act to the floor. The Broadcast Freedom Act builds on an initiative that was passed yesterday overwhelmingly by this House to protect the rights of reporters and their sources from government interference so that we can have a vibrant fourth estate, a vibrant press, and free and informed democracy. Mr. Speaker, the Broadcast Freedom Act would prevent bureaucrats and government agencies from censoring and micromanaging what is said on the public's airwaves. It's all under the guise of restoring the Fairness Doctrine, or so-called, which had an incredible, incredible free speech problem that even the courts recognized. Yet, there are some who don't like what they hear on broadcast and TV talk shows, and the powerful elite in this city would like to restore the Fairness Doctrine. We cannot let that happen, not on religious broadcasters, not on liberal broadcasters, not on conservative broadcasters. Sign the discharge petition. Bring the Freedom Act up for a vote.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, as a graduate of the School of Journalism at the University of Oregon and as the owner of radio stations with award-winning journalists, I am a firm believer in the need for journalists to be able to protect their confidential sources so they can have a vibrant and free press in America. This bill is about much more than simply shielding reporters. It is about protecting the public's right to know. Jailing reporters to force them to divulge their sources has a chilling affect on whistleblowers and investigative reporters. Thomas Jefferson said: ``Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press nor that be limited without danger of losing it.'' A vote for the Free Flow of Information Act is a vote to protect citizens and taxpayers from an ominous and oppressive government that seeks to silence its critics. And in America, such government power would threaten our freedom and our informed democracy.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I want to make one other comment. You're going to see a lot of discussion in this Congress about what to do about global warming. I serve on both the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Energy and Air Quality Committee and the Select Committee on Global Climate Change, and I want to do what is right for the environment. But there are going to be competing viewpoints. The two philosophies are going to collide here. There are some on the Democrat leadership side who think a carbon tax is where America should go, a .50 cent a gallon increase in taxes on your gasoline. That is their vision. It's $50 a ton carbon emissions from power plants, higher taxes, higher fees on ratepayers in America or drivers in America. I don't think it has to be that way, by the way. I think there are ways we can invest in research and development and get new technologies and incent Americans to do the right thing, not punish them with higher taxes, because Europe is kind of going that direction. They are looking at a cap and trade model in Germany. They rolled it out 5 years and the price of electricity in Germany went up 25 percent. They miscalculated. Guess who got the bill? The ratepayers did. Now they are going to try and change that. They think they have got a little different thing worked out. But I would rather invest in research, development in new technologies for new fuels. I was out at the dedication of an ethanol plant in my district. If we can ever get to cellulosic, we can use woody biomass and we can use things like algae to scrub carbon out and to produce fuel. It is amazing what lurks out there on the horizon. But we don't have to punish ratepayers, I don't think, at least. And yet, you watch, that is what is coming. Think back to Jimmy Carter in the seventies. He put on his sweater, sat by the fireplace in the White House. The sweater thing may be there, but you aren't going to get to have a fire. You're just going to shiver in the cold because you won't be able to afford your electricity or your power because they are going to drive up the costs so high that people are going to say ``I can't afford it.'' And then they will race back here to get more money from the government to help bring down the cost of heating. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't have to be that way. We ought to have incentives, not punishment. There are ways to get this done. There is a great story in the Wall Street Journal today about big national companies that are beginning to ask about carbon footprint of their suppliers, and Americans are beginning to say maybe you ought to put a fluorescent light bulb in. If you put it in five of your most used lights, you can save an enormous amount of energy. It's a good thing for your bottom line, and it reduces carbon. Keep your air up in your tires, you reduce carbon emissions and you increase your gas mileage. These are things Americans will do because we want a good, healthy environment. But do you want to have a 20 percent increase in your electricity bill this winter? Do you want 50 cents more on top of a gallon of gas? And who gets the money? The Federal Government. You could have a trillion dollars that way in a heartbeat and it will all be hidden; it will be phased in, come out of your power bills, you will never know it happened. And the big spenders around here are just licking their chops. I don't think it has to be that way. I think we can have smaller, smarter commonsense government that uses market principles and incent the people to do the right thing, not ineffective, wasteful and intrusive government that just costs taxpayers more and more and more.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I appreciate that. America is a great country with a great future if we don't allow it to get messed up in these Halls. We have a great opportunity ahead of us, I believe. I certainly think when you see what is happening in some European capitals, some are good things and then there are some questionable things. In some of these areas they realized their tax rates are much too high. All you have to do is go back and look at Ireland that went ahead after many decades of stagnant economy and then did a major tax reform or reduction and all of a sudden its economy is blossoming. They are creating jobs. They are attracting companies to locate in Ireland. I guess that is what troubles me a bit about what I see happening here in the new Democrat majority is they are looking at how do we raise taxes, which I don't think is the way to go. I think hardworking Americans deserve to keep more of what they earn. Certainly that has been my philosophy and how I have voted here. I think that the outcome is clear. If you look at when President Kennedy cut the capital gains tax rate, revenues went up to the Federal Government. Bill Clinton understood it. He cut capital gains rate. Revenues went up to the Federal Government. Republicans cut the capital gains rate. Revenues went up to the Federal Government. The new majority, the Democrats say, We may just let that expire. We may raise it. We may raise all these taxes. I think the effect will be very harsh on our economy and revenues to the Federal Government will probably go down.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Representative Sessions, I appreciate your comments tonight about the differences between our parties, Republicans versus Democrats; but moreover, the vision for this country. Because I think at the end of the day Americans want us to come together with a vision that will produce jobs, that will let Americans keep more of what they earn, that will do something to protect our various resources and allow us to be competitive internationally. I heard your comments about our competitiveness versus the European Union, and I am no economist, but I did spend a little time over there this spring. And, you know, they're headed down this path of higher taxes in some countries, and other countries have figured out they can't compete with higher taxes and they can't compete with very short work weeks, and they're actually trying to reform to be more like the United States.

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

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I will tell you what is worse. We have a lot of cattle ranchers out there who have permits to graze on some of this ground. Because of the intensity of this fire, it may be one year or two before the grasses come back and they will be allowed to graze. They are having now today, literally today, with the price of hay being what it is and the demand, they are having to liquidate their herds. Some of them may go completely out of business all because these lands aren't being properly managed. Now, for our friends who are concerned about global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, I serve on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Climate Change. A fire that burns as intensely or more so than this one probably emits 100 tons of greenhouse gas emission for every acre, 100 tons per acre. This burned 140,000 acres. A good, green, healthy-growing forest like a lot of them we have in the Northwest will sequester between 4 and 6 tons of carbon per acre. So wouldn't you think that this Congress would be focusing on doing better management on our forests? And yet the subcommittee that I used to chair has now been compressed in with the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee into one, has held one hearing in 9\1/2\ months on this issue. They have marked up no legislation dealing with this issue. Nothing is happening of consequence, except taxpayers are spending $1.2 billion to fight these blazes. The future these kids are looking at is a long way off. I like my forests green and healthy, not black. But some of the groups out there who appeal even thinning in these areas issued a statement recently that said burned forests are healthy forests. Now, I suppose in the enormous scope of time, they grow back. We know that. But I don't think burned forests are the policy that Americans want us to have when it comes to their forests. It doesn't work well for habitat, for water quality and watersheds. Meanwhile, I'll bet we don't cut a stick of this, or very little of it. Instead, because this will get litigated because we won't change the law here which is what needs to happen, even though you and I would do it and you have been helpful in these efforts, instead we will proudly go to the local store and get our furniture made in China from illegally harvested wood from countries that have no environmental laws where the forests are extraordinarily important around the equator to sequester carbon. I don't understand the ineffective, wasteful vision of the other side, when I believe no land manager in America would allow this to occur and wouldn't go in right afterward. Counties don't do it. Private foresters don't allow this to occur. They get in right away. I have been out on sites, and they get in right away, clean it up. Our State of Oregon has a very progressive Forest Practices Act. But they don't wait. They don't wait a year. It will be a year before they are done writing their plan, and then it will be subject to appeal and litigation, most likely for another year.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. It absolutely is one of those issues. When Republicans were in control of this assembly, and I am sorry to sound partisan on this, but it is just the way it is in the clash of philosophies on this particular issue, while we had some bipartisan help, I chaired the Forestry Subcommittee in the House Resources Committee. We held hearing after hearing after hearing on these issues. We marked up and passed legislation, some of which made it all the way into law, some of which was bipartisan and passed this assembly. But unfortunately, today, the Speaker of the House, the majority leader of the House, the Democratic caucus chair, the Natural Resources Committee chair and the Rules Committee chairwoman all voted against, for example, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which did become law, which allowed some thinning of our forest, not as much as I would like to see but helped streamline it. The whole leadership of this Democrat Congress voted against that in the House. So it makes it almost impossible to go to the next step to help stop these wild fires from ravaging our forests, to get to commonsense management of our timber. I want to show an example here of a fire that occurred in my district. This is the example of the Eggley fire. The Eggley fire burned about 140,000 acres of America's grasslands and forest lands out in Harney County, 140,000 acres. Do you see the devastation? These two children are the grandchildren of the county judge there, a Democrat, Steve Grasty, and they are standing there as a stark example of the future that they are now inheriting. Some of this area burned before. Some of this area has been basically made off limits. We think you ought to go in there and remove the burned dead trees while they still have value and restart a new forest sooner. We had legislation that passed the Republican House last year, it was bipartisan, that would have gotten that going. Unfortunately, the Senate never picked it up.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. As the gentleman well knows, the trade bills that are pending open their markets to our goods, because our markets are all already open to their goods. This is about American manufacturers, American agriculture being able to sell what we make or raise here into other markets in a fair way. I met with a wheat marketing group on Friday morning in my district in the town of Moro, Sherman County. And wheat there, they had just sold a barge full of U.S. soft white wheat from the Northwest for $11 a bushel. I stutter because it is a record amount, $11 a bushel. Why? Well, there are droughts in Australia and elsewhere, enormous demand for this product on the world market. Where they have suffered year after year when there have been gluts on the market, in this year, world economy, effects of agriculture around the globe, international trade policy being open, they are going to get up to $11 for their wheat. Now the market has come down a little bit, $300 for barley right now. These are tremendous prices that will help American farmers because it needs to be sold to countries overseas that are consuming it in enormous amounts. So we benefit from trade if these agreements are fair, if they are negotiated properly, and if they are enforced correctly. Now, let me give you an example in my part of the world that is really troubling and that this Congress needs to do something about, and that is the issue of illegal logging. It ties into the whole issue of the environment and how I think Republicans want to take care of the environment that we have especially in our forests. There is an enormous amount of illegal logging going on overseas to satisfy the wood demand that we have right here in the United States and elsewhere. But we are the big importers in many cases. According to the G-8 illegal logging dialogue which happened in Berlin in June of this year, 40 percent of illegally cut timber is attributable to imports to the G-8 countries, and United States is responsible for a quarter of those imports. Now, what is going on around the world I don't think most Americans are aware of. I wasn't. The Washington Post did a terrific story on it. I have now read other studies. Brazil, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Russia appeared to supply, but not necessarily from all their own forests, a great majority of this illegal timber. There may be logs on the books that say, Don't cut here. But that doesn't stop rogue provinces and illegal operators from doing that. Why does that matter? Because here in the United States, this Congress and this government has clamped down on our domestic production of timber off our forested lands, especially in the West, 80 percent reduction since 1990. Meanwhile, wild fires ravage America's forests. I tell you, Congressman Sessions, if Theodore Roosevelt were alive today, he created these forest reserves in 1905, he would be rolling over in his grave to watch how mismanaged they are. We had over 8 million acres go up in fire this year, nearly a record. We are on track for a record each of these last few years. It costs the taxpayers of America $1.2 billion so far and we are not done with the fire season, so far to extinguish these blazes.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. A huge role.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I am glad you made the point about the declining deficits and the increasing revenues to the Federal Government. This Federal Government has never been richer. It has never had more of our tax dollars than it has today. The issue here is how do you control spending. I think that Wall Street Journal editorial and column went on to say today that, Look out, because there are all these new spending programs being put on the desk. I met with a group this weekend in my district and I said, You know, if you smoke, if you drink, if you are born, if you die, if you have capital gains, dividend income, if you just work, look out because the taxes on you are most likely going to go up. That is what we see here, as you know, on the farm bill that recently was approved by this House. I reluctantly at the end voted against it because it abrogates 55 international tax treaties we have on how our companies and other international companies are dealt with. Those are treaties we have. And this House, no notice to anyone here, I think we learned the night before the vote, suddenly wanted to raise taxes $78 billion and abrogate all these international treaties America has entered into. Not renegotiate them. Just blow them apart. And I don't think that is the way to go. We hear more about this every day. It is pick on this group or that group or the next group, set one American against another American and try to leverage one group and wedge one group and engage in all this political posturing to grow government.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. 110,000 new jobs.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. The other thing we learned as Scouts, and, like you say, we are both Eagle Scouts, what has always stuck with me when it comes to how we manage our resources was a very simple line: ``Leave your campsite better than you found it.'' That, I think, is a great guiding principle for those of us in this body, not only for natural resource policy, but for this country, to leave it better than you found it. Mr. Speaker, let me just suggest that we burned more than 8 million acres this year, and 5.7 million acres, which is our new average that we are burning every year in this country, is an area larger than the entire State of New Jersey. We throw these big numbers around in Washington, the bureaucrats do it all the time, and we do it from time to time. Think about every year you're burning an area of your national forest and grasslands and other areas larger than the size of the State of New Jersey. Let me tell you what just happened in my district of eastern Oregon. I have 70,000 square miles of terrific eastern Oregon. Three of the last mills have been put either on indefinite closure or closure in very remote areas where they are surrounded by overstocked forests that need all this work, and they are some of the last, if not the last mills in these communities, and 198 people in those three communities have lost their jobs. That is 2.6 percent of nonfarm payroll. Now the State's economists, the certified smart economic folks, said, I wonder what that impact of those 198 jobs would be if it was spread over 2.6 percent of nonfarm payroll over the Portland metropolitan area. So a standard city in America, what do you think that would be? It would be the loss of 26,400 jobs. So all across the rural West in small communities where the mills close, there's barely a yawn or a whimper in this Congress about what is happening, and yet the prior forest service chiefs and the current one will tell you our country and our forests and our ability to manage those forests cannot be sustained if we lose the infrastructure to do the management. That is precisely what is happening today, for a lot of reasons, some of it market conditions, but part of the market conditions is an 80 percent reduction in the timber harvest on Federal land, an inability to go in and even clean up after a fire in less than 2 years on Federal land. I was just out on the GW fire, not named for me, even though it's my initials, GW fire outside of Black Butte Ranch, Sisters, Oregon. It burned, I think, 7,000 acres, something like that, or 8,000. Where the forest service had done thinning, the fire dropped to the ground and they put it out. That is part of what we were trying to accomplish with our Healthy Forest Restoration Act that President Bush signed into law, that we as Republicans wrote, with bipartisan help. The thinning project, where it dropped to the ground, the trees are all green around it, was held up by environmentalists for let's say 5 years in litigation, 2001 until, I think, 2006, and finally the forest service prevailed and they worked the sale. They thinned out this overstock stand, and a fire hit it and it went out, and the trees are still green. Mr. Speaker, I think that what Americans want is for us to manage, to be good stewards of this land and this resource. To do what is happening today without reform is ineffective, it's wasteful, it's intrusive. Today, 45 percent of the forest service budget goes to fighting fire. It used to be 15. That is 45 percent goes to fighting fire. A nearly like amount goes to paperwork to process the various activities they do, rather than on the ground, doing what they are trained to do. We tie them up in court, in litigation, in all this process and all this stuff. We have got to fix this problem, and if we do, when we passed the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act in the House last year by a big bipartisan margin, it would have generated, I think, $140 million over 10 years to the Federal Treasury in net new revenues. It would have helped pay for cleanup and restoration effort. We can do these things, but this leadership today, they voted against it, from the Speaker on down. They put people in charge of the committees who were opposed to us every step of the way. So I would tell my colleague from Texas, elections have consequences, and the changes are being played out today as more and more firefighters are called upon to put out these blazes, as cattle ranchers in eastern Oregon and around the West are driven off their allotments, having to liquidate their herds or trying to get disaster help in, when it doesn't have to be that way. It doesn't have to be that way. We can work smarter, we can fix these problems, and in so doing, we can improve the environment. Do you think this is great habitat for anything other than bugs and woodpeckers, which need habitat; I'm not downplaying that. We have seen case after case. In Colorado, the Hayman fire. After that enormous fire, the Denver watershed was deluged with mud and dead animal debris and dead fish as the runoff occurred. We are always going to have fire. We need to be smart on how we manage our forests so we can manage our fires. Get it back in balance with nature. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has held one hearing, taken no legislative action, zero, zip, zilch, let it burn, don't fix it afterwards, and we will just get our imported wood from illegal logging and furniture from China. It doesn't make sense. It needs to change.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

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

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I thank our ranking member for yielding the time. Mr. Chairman, I have been a believer that when it comes to RPS, they are best implemented locally at the State level or regionally, and, indeed, our State of Oregon has done so very effectively after much consideration. I came to the floor today thinking maybe this was a national version, if we were going to have one, to incent renewable energy, which I am a big advocate of, that this might work. But in reading this amendment as it has been proposed over the last few days, there are some issues that are contained therein that bring me to the point where I have to oppose it. Predominantly they relate around the sections that preclude certain biomass, depending on where it came from, from counting toward the Renewable Portfolio Standards requirement. I just don't understand why if biomass taken off one part of a forest counts, biomass taken off another part of a forest doesn't count. These are arbitrary decisions contained on page 3 and elsewhere in this legislation. I have an area in my district that has juniper trees that need to be removed, and everyone agrees they need to be removed. You could remove those juniper trees off the land not under the National Landscape Conservation District boundaries and they would count toward the biomass, toward Renewable Portfolio Standards, but those contained therein would not. The same with roadless wilderness study areas and things of that nature. Additionally, I am concerned about a definition I just ran across involving rural electric co-ops and how that could be defined, because I know there are some co-ops that aren't necessarily rural only. Finally, I would love to know why Hawaii is completely exempted from it.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with you the storied tradition and history that led to the establishment of Roberts Field-Redmond Municipal Airport in Redmond, Oregon. The same strong community support that led to the construction and completion of the airfield still exists today as the City of Redmond embarks on a terminal construction project to further expand air services in the beautiful region of central Oregon. The origins of the airport date back to the 1920s, when local farmers and merchants made a monthly chore of collecting and clearing debris from the roads. In the neighboring towns of Alfalfa and Powell Butte, farmers did the same until the men met in the middle and the roads could once again facilitate trade. Madam Speaker, in 1928 discussions of creating an air strip grew serious. Members of the Ray Johnson Post of the American Legion in Redmond formed an aviation committee and work on an air strip began. The September 6, 1928 Redmond Spokesman reported: ``A fine, level spot two miles east of town on the Ochoco Highway will be cleared immediately of trees and sagebrush . . . the post had funds to begin an aviation program that will ultimately develop into an up-to-date place for airplanes to land and take off.'' In 1933, the Department of the Interior decided to lease approximately 640 acres southeast of Redmond to the Ray Johnson Post, giving them the exclusive rights to develop an airfield there. The Post leased the land for $10 a year for 20 years. By 1936 the landing was listed as an airfield on most federal maps. The Works Progress Administration (WPA) provided critical funding toward rock removal to ensure that Roberts Field was safe for take off and landing procedures. At the beginning of 1941, the WPA was approached by the War Administration with an inquiry on the cost of building a Class III airport in Redmond. J.R. Roberts, a local resident and community leader, noted at the time that a Class III airport would provide substantial improvements to the airport and grant the construction of lights, paved runways, hangers, buildings and shops. That message was relayed to the WPA and consequently the War Administration and the powers in Washington, DC. Madam Speaker and fellow colleagues, I can only imagine the surprise and the excitement of many residents in Redmond when they awoke one morning in February of 1941 to read the following in the Redmond Spokesman: ``Roosevelt Slaps OK on Airport and reported $717,000 in WPA funds approved.'' In June of 1941 the airport was named after J.R. Roberts as a tribute to all of his work and leadership that led to the establishment of the airport. Meanwhile, improvements to the airport continued. In October of the same year, $318,000 of defense funding was allocated for the construction of two runways at Roberts Field. In 1942, the city leased the airport back to the government and allowed for the construction of a bomber base. When World War II ended, commercial air service was established at Roberts Field as J.R. Roberts worked diligently to negotiate the return of the airport to city control. Madam Speaker, the town's population remained relatively static from the 1950s until the 1980s. The building that currently sits on the airport site was constructed in 1981 and was 8,000 square feet in size. But in the 1990s, Redmond and Deschutes County began to grow. That growth exploded from 2000 to 2006, when Redmond's population increased by a stunning 74.3 percent, making it Oregon's fastest-growing city and one of the fastest-growing communities in the country. Under the exceptional guidance and leadership of the current airport manager, Carrie Novick, along with Redmond Mayor Alan Unger, the Redmond City Council and Redmond City Manager Mike Patterson, Roberts Field has kept pace with the rapid growth the region has experienced. In 2003 the airport was expanded by 16,000 square feet to a total size of 24,000 square feet. Once constructed, the new terminal will be 140,000 square feet and utilize energy efficient measures to achieve its goal of constructing a state-of-the-art building to serve the residents of central Oregon for many years to come. Madam Speaker, Roberts Field today provides non-stop service to Eugene, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, and Seattle through Allegiant Airlines, Horizon Air and United Airlines and Delta Air Lines through services operated by SkyWest Airlines. It is the fourth largest commercial service airport in Oregon, operating approximately 44 arriving and departing flights daily. In 1997, 111,450 passengers boarded flights at Roberts Field; last year, 215,163 passengers departed from Redmond. Madam Speaker, today's growth and activity at the airport is a testament to the farmers, ranchers and merchants who fulfilled the vision described in the Redmond Spokesman nearly 80 years ago. On August 15, 2007, I will join residents in Redmond to celebrate the great success that Roberts Field has enjoyed since it was established. That morning we will break ground on a terminal expansion that will further enhance the legacy of the Roberts Field-Redmond Municipal Airport. It will be an historic event that the next generation will look back on as a key step in the region's smart and successful growth.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring the honor associated with the United States House of Representatives to Providence Hood River Memorial Hospital. On August 4, 2007, the hospital, located at 13th and May Streets in my hometown of Hood River, Oregon, will officially celebrate 75 years of service. I was fortunate enough to serve on the hospital's Board of Directors for five years and that experience provided me the opportunity to see firsthand the dedication and commitment of the staff and administration to the health of the entire community. At the turn of the 20th century, 622 people inhabited Hood River. The advent of the railroad transformed this once isolated community into a hub for some of the nation's finest timber and fruit producers. Within five years, the population tripled. Today, 20,500 people call Hood River County home and timber and fruit produces remain a significant element of the region's fabric but so do windsurfers, skiers and hikers. In 1905, local physicians came together to open Cottage Hospital at 716 Oak Street. Hood River's first hospital served the community for 19 years, before it was declared structurally unsafe and closed by the fire marshal in 1924. Although a disappointing loss to the community, the closure of Cottage Hospital set into motion a tremendous local commitment to health care that carries on today. The Hood River Hospital Association organized for the purpose of building a new community hospital to replace Cottage Hospital. Successful fundraising efforts netted enough money to begin construction on a new hospital in 1931. Hood River Hospital admitted 501 patients during its first year of operation in 1932. In the late 1940s, Hood River Hospital's surgery department owned all the latest equipment: an operating table, a spotlight, basins, forceps, knives, probes, clips and clamps. However, the medical field did not yet know the convenience of disposable items. Following surgery, rubber gloves were washed, dried and powdered to sterilize them. Surgery needles were sharpened, sterilized and reused. As the population of Hood River grew after World War II, the patient population soon outpaced hospital capacity. The residents of Hood River swung into action again and with generous donations from community members the hospital was enlarged in 1958. In response to the abundant donations that were made in memory of those whose lives were touched by the hospital, the name of the facility was officially changed to Hood River Memorial Hospital. A cycle was becoming clear; every two to three decades the hospital outgrew its space and an expansion was necessary to keep pace with the needs of patients and technological advancements. It happened in the late 1950s and again in the 1980s when community donations allowed for the construction of new patient care wings. In the 1990s the hospital footprint was expanded, allowing for the addition of a new family birthing center and the Ray T. Yasui Dialysis Center, the first dialysis center in the Columbia Gorge. All of these efforts were made possible by unwavering donations of time, talent and treasure from the Hood River community. As Providence Hood River Memorial Hospital celebrates 75 years in a structure that no longer physically resembles the original hospital that opened its doors in 1932, another much-needed expansion and renovation project begins. This new phase of development will feature a new entrance and lobby. it also will allow the diagnostic imaging department to operate from one location. The short stay surgery department will be transformed to include 18 private rooms. The family birthing center will add a dedicated cesarean section operating room and other features to comfort laboring mothers. Construction is set to begin in the fall and should be completed in about a year. At that time, the current building will be renovated and modernized to include a 10 bed rehabilitation center which will allow patients who have experienced a stroke or heart attack to recover and rehabilitate close to home. Milestones such as anniversaries cause us to pause and reflect on history, achievements and the individuals that contributed to the successes that have brought us to where we are today. Madam Speaker, indeed it is important for us to celebrate milestones. However, it is my hope that we will all strive to acknowledge the extraordinary care and compassion that is provided each and every day by those who staff and support community hospitals throughout the year, not just during milestone celebrations. My colleagues, please join me in congratulating Providence Hood River Memorial Hospital for their exemplary service over the past 75 years and in wishing them very well as they break ground on the next 75 years.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I agree that the SCHIP program is a good program, as it was created in a bipartisan manner many years ago. Its extension would be a good thing. But what we have before us today on the floor is not, because it robs from senior citizens in my district and elsewhere to provide extraordinary and expanded coverage of health care to people who may already have it, as well as much higher income levels. Eighty to one hundred thousand dollars you could be making, your kids could be eligible for your current health insurance from your employer, and this program, as proposed by the Democrats, would actually take those off, or potentially could take those kids off, as well as take away the Medicare choice that seniors in my district, some 31,798 seniors in my district run the potential of losing the choice they have for Medicare. I was at a town meeting in the eastern part of my district about 2 weeks ago; and a woman said, please, Congressman, don't let them take away my Medicare. And that's what's happening today. And it's unfortunate the process has been so usurped that we didn't have time other than 1 minute to talk about it.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. So I am. This amendment, if approved, would save $100,000. This amendment, if approved, would save $100,000. I would like to be able to put that in a broader context for my colleagues in terms of what that might mean to other spending and other situations around here where the Democrats have decided to raise---- point of order

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I ask to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I rise today on the McHenry amendment, which would cut $100,000 from the USDA, the Department of Agriculture. $100,000, that is the equivalent to what the out-of-pocket costs will be if you have a 10 percent cut in Medicare Advantage for poor health seniors in my State. Point of Order

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. No, I actually was.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I am trying to put what $100,000 means in perspective for people who may actually get hit with higher costs because of other policy changes coming down the road as part of this overall budget. I would also point out to my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle that the Agriculture appropriations bill also contains in it language related to drug reimportation; and, indeed, that is an issue in this bill before this House at this time. Certainly, if the Medicare Advantage plans are whacked in a rural district, then perhaps seniors may want to take advantage of that provision. I don't know. Because drug reimportation poses a whole set of different issues that can be problematic, if you have seen some of the polluted drugs coming in from China right now. So that is an issue that concerns me. Because if they lose their Medicare Advantage coverage that may help them in that area, who knows what is left in terms of cuts in Medicare. Point of Order

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman. Is there not in the underlying bill language dealing with drug importation?