Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you and my colleagues my distinct pride in a winning institution in my district, the Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT). Located in Klamath Falls, Oregon, OIT is nationally recognized for its high standards and results-oriented approach to education. The school motto, ``First Hired, Highest Paid,'' is no idle boast. A few years ago I had the honor of serving as commencement speaker during an OIT graduation, and nearly all of the graduates I addressed had been offered high-paying jobs. Ably led by President Martha Anne Dow, OIT pursues excellence in every aspect of the college experience, from research and technology application to career-oriented instruction and competitive athletics. Mr. Speaker, it is in the realm of athletics that OIT most recently demonstrated its championship mettle when the men's basketball team won the NAIA Division II National Title. Seeded 16th, the OIT Hustlin' Owls were not favored to win, but when the final buzzer sounded they had proven themselves to be the best team in the nation among NAIA Division II teams. Their series of upset victories may have surprised some sportscasters, but it was no surprise to the fans of OIT who have come to expect great things from the Hustlin' Owls under the phenomenal coaching of Danny Miles. Coach Danny Miles, a NAIA Hall of Fame coach, took over a losing basketball program at OIT thirty-three years ago and never looked back. Racking up 734 career wins, Danny ranks 17th on the all-time career victory list. It is no surprise that this year he was named NAIA Coach of the Year, an honor that he shares with his able staff: Mike Pisan, Doug Kintzinger, Jarrod Davis, Milijia Mitrovic, and Aristide Agnimel. Although Coach Miles is proud to have won the national championship, he is even more proud of the fact that he, his staff, his team, and the OIT fans won the James Naismith Award for sportsmanship. This was not just a victory of superior athleticism and coaching; it was a victory of strong character. I join the OIT family in my pride over senior Kevin Baker's winning the tournament's Most Valuable Player award. Baker was also joined by teammates Florian Houget and Todd Matthews on the All-Tournament team. It goes without saying that a championship performance involves every team member, so I also want to share with you my pride in Hustlin' Owls Michael Nunes, Jared Hall, Levell Hesia, Joe Billings, David Michaelis, Matt Johnson, Elijah Page, and Alex Carlson, each of whom contributed so much to their team's winning effort. Mr. Speaker, for those who are familiar with the story of the Klamath Basin in my district, you know the story of a strong, proud people who live their lives with heart and determination. It is no surprise that the bond between OIT and the Klamath community is so strong. They share the character of winners who never, ever give up. We can all find inspiration from OIT's achievements, many more of which I expect to recognize in the future.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his work on this legislation. I want to acknowledge up front that I am a broadcast licensee, owner and operator of five radio stations, and I am very supportive of this bill in this form. It was time that the broadcast community cleaned up the airwaves, that owners took the responsibility to make sure that the talent on their shows operated within the bounds of the law. It is important to note that this legislation does not change the standards that have always been on the books and recognized by the courts when it comes to clean talk on the airwaves. This legislation, though, gives the FCC the fining authority it needs to deal with egregious violations of the law and also the incentive it needs to act, and act more appropriately. For those of us who are small-community broadcasters, it also recognizes that the fine should fit and the punishment should be fair; and, therefore, it recognizes both the role of affiliates and their liabilities versus those providing the programming, as well as having the FCC recognize market size when levying fines. Because, indeed, a fine of a half a million dollars on a small-market broadcaster could spell bankruptcy, when on a large conglomerate, it may be just another cost of doing business. I want to conclude my remarks this morning by having Americans and Members in this Chamber recognize fully that the actions that are taken by some broadcasters are not the actions taken by most broadcasters. Allowing indecent, profane, and obscene language on stations is something most of us find offensive, just as most Americans do. Broadcasters have made enormous contributions to their communities, raising money for charity, helping in emergencies, and providing that vital communication link. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill. I thank the Chairman for his support of the amendments that were included.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to one of Oregon's finest citizens and most dedicated public servants, the late Benjamin ``Kip'' Lombard, Jr. It is with great sadness that I report that Kip passed away last year at the age of sixty-two, though he lives on in the memories of the many people he touched during his life and the grateful citizens on whose behalf he worked so tirelessly. Mr. Speaker, Kip Lombard was a true son of the State of Oregon, and his love for his native state was evident in the many labors he performed for the betterment of his fellow Oregonians. Kip was blessed with both a keen intellect and the motivation to use his intellectual gifts in the service of others. He graduated with honors as a member of the first class of the University of Oregon Honors College, an institution reserved for only the most academically gifted. Knowing firsthand the value of a good education, Kip was a steadfast advocate for promoting academic excellence in Oregon. He served on the Jackson County Education Service District, Southern Oregon University's Regional Advisory Board, and as a volunteer on the Board of Directors of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival Association. Mr. Speaker, while Kip's contributions to his community and state were diverse, he made perhaps his greatest mark in his role as State Representative. Kip served faithfully in the Oregon State Legislature from 1977 to 1985, where he quickly gained a reputation for his effectiveness, conviction, personal integrity and abiding respect for others. When the big jobs had to be done, Kip was always there, working relentlessly and forsaking the limelight. He was fiercely loyal to his southern Oregon constituents, yet committed to making Oregon the greatest state in the Union. He was, in short, a true gentleman and statesman in the finest tradition of Oregon's greatest public leaders. Kip was widely respected for his thorough knowledge of Western water issues, both during his service in the legislature and in his law practice. As an attorney in private practice Kip brought the same high standards to his profession that he brought to the State House, and his clients were well served by him. Mr. Speaker, although Kip's life was distinguished by many impressive accomplishments and the recognition that attended his achievements, I know that as a humble man his greatest source of pride was attaining the rank of Eagle Scout. Many of Kip's finest qualities were learned and nurtured in the Scouts, and he maintained a close relationship to Scouting throughout his life. Kip Lombard's passing subtracts from the number of truly good men in this world, but it will be impossible for us ever to forget that Kip left this world a better place than he found it. Kip will always remain an inspiration to me, and his life's work will always represent the ideal of using one's God-given abilities on behalf of others. Mr. Speaker, Kip was a man of many distinguished titles, but he valued none of them more highly than the titles of husband and father. I know the solemn pride that his wife, Bernadette, his children, Christopher and Ian, and his grandson, Samuel Benjamin, must certainly feel. While he has left their side in this world, I hope they find consolation in the knowledge that his was a life extremely well lived. For my part, I am grateful to have called Kip Lombard my friend and to have been associated with a man whose tireless work will benefit the State of Oregon for generations.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to pay special tribute to a fine American, a true gentleman and a good friend of mine, Lenn Hannon, on the occasion of his retirement from the Oregon State Senate. It is a pleasure to honor Lenn and his lovely wife, Dixie, who have stood together in public life for more than 30 years and together have made invaluable contributions to the State of Oregon and its people. Mr. Speaker, Lenn Hannon traces his interest in public service to 1960 when, as a high school junior and member of the school band, Lenn had an opportunity to shake hands with a young Senator campaigning for President named John F. Kennedy. Inspired by Kennedy's call to public service, Lenn would go on to live his life by Kennedy's famous admonition: ``Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.'' Lenn began his career in public service in 1974, when he won a seat in the State Senate by a mere 37 votes. During his first years in the Senate, Hannon developed a reputation as a smart, open-minded and fair lawmaker whose concern for the people he represented was far greater than his concern for himself. In 1980, Lenn switched parties to become one of only seven Republicans in the State Senate. Over the years he gradually built up seniority to become the Senate's senior Republican and Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. During this time, he devoted himself to a wide range of issues, from strengthening education and arts programs to combating substance abuse and managing federal land issues. One of his greatest accomplishments in the State Legislature was his success in helping to develop Southern Oregon University into a premiere educational institution for southern Oregon. The reverence his name inspires among SOU faculty, staff and alumni is a testament to his enduring contributions to the university. Mr. Speaker, now that Lenn's service in the State Senate has come to an end, Lenn will serve on the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, a role that will allow him to continue serving the citizens of Oregon. He and Dixie will move to Salem for the new job, but their hearts will always remain in the community where they are so well loved. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating these extraordinary Americans, Lenn and Dixie Hannon. I would like to thank them both personally for all they have done for the people of southern Oregon, the Second District, and the State of Oregon. I wish Lenn and Dixie and their entire family all the best in future endeavors.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Washington, with whom I have worked closely on this and other legislation to improve the great Northwest and certainly improve and protect America's forests. I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the Committee on Resources, and certainly my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), for their yeoman's effort on this legislation; my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) as well for their work; and certainly the President of the United States, who on not one, but two occasions has come out to the Northwest to drive home the point that we had to pass legislation that embodies the principles contained in H.R. 1904. I think it is especially important. There are not many of us who do not recognize that if we do not remove the ladder fuels that my colleague from California talked about, the old growth policy that will be out there is one of let it burn, because that is what is happening today in America's forests. Because we have taken natural fire out of the equation and taken human management out of the equation, these forests have become completely overstocked. So it is like any other fire, it is about the fuel load. And the fuel load is such that when fire starts today, unlike 100 years ago, when it starts today, it burns catastrophically. We witnessed it in the Biscuit Fire in southern Oregon a year ago. We witnessed it in the B&B fire this summer in my district. We witnessed it in California. We can see it all across America's great forests and rangelands that when there is too much fuel, the fire is nearly uncontrollable and certainly catastrophic. Let us talk about the human consequences, because we saw it especially this year in California, but we have seen it before. Last year 23 firefighters lost their lives, and the American taxpayer spent $1.5 billion containing 2002's record fires. This shows you a scene that, unfortunately, is one that has been seen far too often: a home that has been destroyed in a forested area. This next shot shows you what happens to fish habitat. This was in my district in eastern Oregon, a fire that took place in 1989. This is a stream that used to be part of the spring Chinook salmon habitat. You can see it is nothing but a mudflow here. There is no buffer. These are all dead trees. It looks like a moonscape or a Mars-scape. This was in the Wallowa Whitman National Forest. This is what you get when you cannot control forest fires. This, on the other hand, is an example of how a fire that has been treated like we are talking about treating performs. This is an area where President Bush accompanied me and Senator Smith and others, Senator Wyden, up to the Squires Peak fire in 2002. And you can see where the land had been treated, there are good healthy trees left behind. There is a fire burning here, but it has fallen to the ground, because that is what happens when you treat in these areas. The fire drops to the ground, and our firefighters are able to control and contain it. The damage is not that significant. In fact, it can be very positive in terms of when a fire burns like this to regenerate. But just on the other side of this hill where the same people who fought the fire have been doing the thinning work, it was completely obvious because they had not thinned there yet. Where they had not thinned, the fire had been in the canopy, it had been at the top. It had been catastrophic and extraordinarily destructive. Finally, let me make this point. By streamlining this process we are going to be able to get in and do this kind of work sooner so we do not end up with that kind of devastation I showed you earlier. But we also, as a policy, as a Congress, need to take a look at what happens after a catastrophic fire. How can we get in and restore America's great conifer forests instead of letting them become brush? How do we get in and protect the habitat that remains after a fire and improve it so our fish runs can come back? That is a debate we will have to have in the future. Today, though, I am delighted that we are at this point with a comprehensive bipartisan, bicameral plan that will move us an enormous generation forward to protect and preserve America's forests, create jobs in our rural communities, and make sure fire, when it burns, is not catastrophic.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, my parents are both gone now. They died before this Congress could act to provide prescription drug coverage for them under Medicare. So they both paid for it out of their pocket. Let us talk about what this bill would do for those who survive. The agreement would provide 514,456 Oregonian seniors with access to a Medicare prescription drug benefit for the first time in the history of this program. Beginning in 2006, there would be 129,000 Medicare individuals in Oregon who would have access to drug coverage they would not otherwise have, and it will improve it for many more. They will get a $600 card if you are in the lower-income level of $12,000 a year. Couples who make $16,000 a year who lack prescription drug coverage today would be given $600 in annual assistance to help them afford their medicines along with the discount card of 15 to 25 percent. That is a total of $92 million for Oregon seniors that would help 76,000 of them be able to pay for their drugs in 2004 and 2005. There are 151,000 seniors in Oregon who have limited savings and low incomes who will qualify for even more generous coverage. They will pay no premium, no deductible for their prescription drug coverage, and they will just be responsible for a minimal copayment. They will get the coverage. If you are low income under this plan, they get the coverage. Perhaps that is part of why the Portland Oregonian has endorsed this program. More importantly, my State like many has faced some fairly difficult fiscal challenges. I was there when we implemented the Oregon health plan and helped put it into place. Today because of the fiscal challenges, they are having to cut people off of Medicaid in Oregon. This plan over 8 years will return $279 million by having Medicare pick up the cost of those senior low-income people. This is a balanced plan that will help our seniors get the prescription drug coverage they need. We ought to enact it.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides for major improvements in how we will manage our forests. First of all, it reduces unneeded government analysis. Second, it provides for actually more public involvement, especially in the beginning, through better notice and better participation requirements. It requires and reforms the appeals process so we can end the costly delays that do keep our professional foresters from doing the work they need to do to make our forests more healthy. Finally, it does require the courts to more quickly move on appeals and, more importantly, consider the catastrophic affect on forest health of preventing these projects from going forward. Now, we have heard today about the problem with the General Accounting Office, but let us talk about what the General Accounting Office actually found. This is what the GAO report found: 58 percent of eligible thinning projects in the United States were appealed in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. Fifty-two percent of the eligible forest thinning projects proposed near communities in the wildland urban interface were appealed. Half the projects, half the projects right around communities were appealed. The GAO found an overwhelming number of Forest Service appeals were found to be without merit. Seventy-three percent of the appeals were rejected. Ladies and gentlemen, we have to change the process. That is what we are doing today. We are going to fund the work that needs to be done. This year alone we are going to spend $420 million to go in and thin out our forests so we will not have catastrophic fires in the future. I would like to see this bill expanded beyond 11 percent of the forests that need this kind of treatment, but that is as far as we could get under this act. I want to see our communities protected. This legislation relies on the underlying National Forest management plans to protect old growth forests. My colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) talks about protecting old growth. We do that in this bill because the underlying plans protect the old growth. And the alternative of defeating this bill is to have old growth forests that are blackened, burned and destroyed, and I will not stand for that. Vote for the bill.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I think it is critically important that we do that to move this program forward.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), the author of this measure.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is considering House Concurrent Resolution 206 introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) to recognize the important work that the National Marrow Donor Program and other bone marrow donor programs do to save lives. Bone marrow transplants are often one of the last options available to patients struggling to fight debilitating and often terminal illnesses. Unfortunately, finding a bone marrow match is very difficult. In fact, every year nearly two-thirds of patients in need of a bone marrow transplant will not find a marrow donor match within their family and, therefore, must rely on the help of strangers. Each month the National Bone Marrow Registry coordinates more than 150 transplants. With a diverse registry of more than 4 million potential bone marrow and cord blood donors, the National Bone Marrow Registry offers hope to thousands of patients. Just last month, the House approved H.R. 3034, the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry Reauthorization Act, to reauthorize the national bone marrow registry for an additional 5-year period. Since 1986, the National Bone Marrow Donor Program has facilitated more than 15,000 transplants for patients. I hope the Senate will join us soon in extending this program to guarantee that thousands more will benefit. This resolution will raise awareness about the bone marrow donor programs, and will encourage more Americans to donate, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 206) supporting the National Marrow Donor Program and other bone marrow donor programs and encouraging Americans to learn about the importance of bone marrow donation.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I regrettably come to the floor in opposition to the Interior conference report that my friend from North Carolina and the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Taylor, worked so hard in putting together. There are many things in this conference report for which I'm very grateful. I'm grateful to the Chairman for working with me to give the Bureau of Indian Affairs the authority to fund the first phase of the recommendations from the Chiloquin dam study, a critical effort in the Klamath Basin of southern Oregon to improve endangered sucker fish habitat and lighten the burden on agriculture. I also want to extend my sincere appreciation to the Chairman for funding PILT at $227,500,000--one of its highest levels ever. While it is not the fully authorized level of $360 million that I have been a staunch advocate for, it's much better than it has been in the past and the good Chairman and his top-notch staff are to thank for this. Finally, I want to commend the Chairman for his work in getting $400 million included in the conference report to replenish the exhausted fire suppression accounts of the BLM and Forest Service, and I commend him for including almost $2.5 billion to implement the National fire plan next year. These are significant accomplishments and I have enthusiastically supported them. However, even with the inclusion of all these excellent provisions, I reluctantly must vote against the conference report because of the language included that undermines the efforts of my friend from California, the Chairman of the Resources Committee, to find a legislative solution to the complicated problem of tribal trust accounting. The language added to the conference report would interrupt the Department of the Interior's conduct of its historical accounting of individual Indian trust fund accounts, which is mandated by federal court order in Cobell v. Norton. The language would suspend any such accounting until either December 31, 2004 or until Congress revised the American Indian Trust Management Reform Act to limit this forensic accounting activity. The added language not only interferes with a court-required accounting for hundreds of thousands of Native Americans, but also seeks to force a potentially hasty decision on an exceptionally complex issue and overlooks an agreement reached between Chairman Pombo and Chairman Taylor during House floor consideration of this bill in July. That agreement stated that settlement of the Cobell matter would be left to Chairman Pombo's Resources Committee to resolve, the proper authorizing committee venue. Unfortunately, the conference report language does not comport with that agreement, and so I will reluctantly vote against this bill in its current form. I am hopeful that this provision can successfully be resolved in the correct legislative forum, and that the many other outstanding provisions of the Interior Appropriations bill developed under the fine leadership of Chairman Taylor remain intact.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to pay special tribute to a fine American, a true gentleman and a good friend of mine, Mr. Bob Skinner, Jr. of Oregon on the occasion of the end of his term as president of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association (OCA). Bob is a fifth generation cattle rancher, raised on the high desert of southeast Oregon. Growing up on his family's ranch outside of the small town of Jordan Valley, Bob learned the virtues of hard work, patience, and dependability. After earning a B.S. degree in business from the College of Idaho, Bob's devotion to his family and friends and his affinity for the ranching way of life drew him home to Jordan Valley and Oregon's vast high desert landscapes. Through his many efforts over the years, Bob has emerged as a powerful spokesman for family ranchers and the rural way of life both in Oregon and across the nation. During the early 1990's, he led the effort to organize his neighbors in defense of grazing rights along the Owyhee River following an attempt to eliminate grazing as a critical land management tool. In the late 1990's after the Steens Mountain was proposed as a national monument Bob teamed up with other ranchers, community leaders and me to find a solution that would ensure the sustainability of livestock production on the mountain while preserving treasured resources. Bob was critical to the establishment of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area, which arose from legislation I introduced in Congress--one of the most widely applauded measures to affect eastern Oregon in decades. Mr. Speaker, Bob enjoys a reputation as a clear, cool head in discussions pertaining to the cattle industry. He is effective precisely because of his ability to maintain a levelheaded and respectful demeanor while tenaciously fighting for the interests of family ranchers. Bob's quiet, articulate and effective leadership has earned him the respect of many in Oregon and throughout the West. Bob understands that we can preserve the ranching lifestyle and stand up for the hard-working people who make their living off the land while improving the environment. Ranchers are, in fact, true stewards of the land and have been for many generations. Bob has been recognized for his leadership with a number of prestigious awards, among them the 1997 Voice of the Industry Award of the Portland Chamber Agriculture Industries Committee and the 2000 Salem Chamber Agriculture Star Award. Over the years, Bob has given back generously to his community by donating his time and energy to various worthy causes. He has served on numerous local boards ranging from the county road board to the local ambulance board. Bob has also devoted much of his time to the young people of Malheur County as a 4-H leader. He further shares both his love of flying and his Cessna 182 to provide transportation for search and rescue personnel. I am proud to call Bob Skinner, Jr. my good friend and appreciate the opportunity to share his accomplishments over his long and distinguished career as an Oregon cattle rancher. The cattle industry and future generations of farmers and ranchers will continue to benefit from Bob's dedication and willingness to go the extra mile on their behalf. I would be remiss if I failed to note Bob's remarkable family and all that they mean to him. Bob's father, Bob Skinner, Sr. is an equally impressive man. He resides in Jordan Valley, too, and has a distinguished leadership background similar to his son's. Bob Sr. was a former national committee member of the Public Lands Council and a Past President of Oregon Cattlemen's Association. I am fortunate to call Bob Sr. and his wonderful wife Sara my good friends. Bob Jr.'s wife, Karen, is likewise deserving of considerable praise. She is Bob's partner in success and travels great distances to dedicate herself to her community and industry. Together Bob and Karen have raised four children, Robbin, Kimberly, Silas, and Michael, who have given the Skinners six beloved grandchildren, Nicholous, Kirk and Birch, Kasen, Regann, and Kort. In the summer of 2002, I had the privilege of spending the night in Jordan Valley with the entire family and had a wonderful time getting to know the extended Skinner clan. Together they truly exemplify the dedicated, hard-working and fun-loving American family. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating this extraordinary man and great American, Bob Skinner, Jr. I would like to thank Bob personally for all he has done for the people of Malheur County, the Second District, and the State of Oregon--especially those Westerners who make their living off the land. I wish Bob, his wife Karen and their entire family all the best in future endeavors.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Glen Stonebrink, on the occasion of his retirement. During his long and distinguished career, Glen has committed his energy and efforts to making both his community and the State of Oregon better places to live. Glen's accomplishments range from educating our young people to advocating on behalf of rural Americans, two pursuits that he has approached with selfless dedication. His commitment, spirit and devotion to his fellow citizens have been his most defining trait over the years, and I am proud to call Glen and his wonderful wife, Loydee, my friends. As a high school teacher at Yamhill Carlton High School and then as a college professor at Linfield College, Glen devoted his energy and talent to training a new generation of Oregonians in math, physics, and computer science. It is perhaps Glen's dedication and devotion to the young people he instructed that will serve as his most enduring legacy. As many of my colleagues know, the West is known for its stunning natural beauty, fertile soil and lush timberlands. We owe a debt of gratitude to those individuals who devote themselves to protecting our national treasures while preserving the farming and ranching way of life for future generations. Growing up on his family's wheat and cattle ranch in the high country of Wallowa County, Glen learned firsthand the importance of balancing these interests while working to protect the values of rural Oregonians. Glen's real world understanding and education in natural resource issues led to his appointment under both the Reagan and Bush Administrations as the State Executive Director for the Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service, now known as the Farm Service Agency. In this prestigious position he had the opportunity to help preserve and promote American agriculture while working with farmers to implement programs to conserve land and water resources. After his term as State Executive Director of the Oregon Farm Services Agency, Glen brought his knowledge of the West to Washington, D.C., where he worked as the Legislative Director for Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth of Idaho. During his tenure working on Capitol Hill, my staff worked closely with him on a number of issues impacting the cattle and ranching industry. For the last six years, Glen has served as the Executive Director of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, working to protect the ranching way of life. Glen has been a tireless advocate for rural issues ranging from private property rights to water rights. He is also called upon frequently to advise groups on natural resource issues and provide assistance in working with the federal government. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating Glen Stonebrink on the many achievements that mark his long and impressive career. I am grateful for all that he has done on behalf of the people of Oregon and the people of the rural West. I wish Glen, Loydee and their entire family all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to commend my colleague from Texas for offering this motion to instruct. I think it is a valid one. I think it is an important one. I concur with his comments about the need to conduct this discussion in open and in a conference. It is probably misplaced in that where it really needs to be put is to our fellows and ladies on the other side of the Chamber in the sense that we need them to come to the conference. I think we have a reputation in the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Resources, as we have heard, about in the importance of working together, debating these issues, coming to closure in a fair and aboveboard and open way. I want to point out too that when it comes to the issue of hazardous fuels reduction, we have heard a lot about how the Senate bill provides a $750 million a year authorization, and, indeed, we know that authorization is important. What we never hear is the fact that in the underlying law, the law already on the books that provides for the national fire plan, there is already an authorization that provides for such sums as may be necessary to be spent for hazardous fuels work. So in other words, the Department of Forestry and the Department of Interior both have the authority already under existing law to spend whatever sums are necessary that can be appropriated by this Congress to do the kind of work that we are talking about needs to be done. And in fact, in the last 5 years we have quadrupled in the Congress the spending on hazardous fuels work, recognizing the importance of doing this work. But so much more has to be done out there if we are going to prevent the kinds of catastrophic fires we saw in California this year, that we have seen in Oregon year after year, and to get in and clean up these forests, to get the brush out, to get the ladder fuels out, so that we can have healthy forests, green forests, not black ones, so people are not forced to evacuate and lose everything that they have spent a lifetime trying to create around their homes, so that we can protect communities. There are some issues in the Senate bill I have some disagreements with. They tripled the size of the bill, first of all, from 51 pages to 153 pages. Now, there are some editorial writers supporting the Senate bill, telling us in the House we had to adopt it before the Senate even finished amending it, which is kind of ironic. They have added protection for ginseng and Green Mountain National Forest Boundary and a prohibition on cock fighting, and Karst conservation in Puerto Rico, some things that are not normally considered prime topics when it comes to hazardous fuels reductions in Federal forests. I mean, I do not know what ginseng labeling has to do with hazardous forests, but we are dealing with the other body here, and we will accommodate them to the best of our ability. But our focus has to be on making sure we solve the procedural problems. In some of the hazardous fuels reductions projects the Members have heard about in my State today from my colleague, what was not mentioned was the fact that some of those very projects were appealed by groups while those places were burning this summer. The audacity. These groups are actually appealing a hazardous fuels project on the same day part of that proposed hazardous fuels project was burning. This is how out of control the appeals process is. This is why this legislation is so critical, and why we need to go to conference and act swiftly to pass it. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3249-- a bill I introduced with my colleague from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, which would extend the term of the Forest Counties Payments Committee. I want to commend the chairman of the Resources Committee, Mr. Pombo, and the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Goodlatte, for expediting the consideration of this legislation in their respective committees. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3249 would extend the term of the Forest Counties Payments Committee to coincide with the sunset of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, which expires on September 30, 2007. The committee was created in the FY 2001 Interior Appropriations bill and is comprised of local government county and school officials. Its purpose was to develop long-term solutions to ensure the proper management of our national forests, emphasizing forest health and economic activity, and evaluate the effectiveness of the County Schools legislation. Congress charged the committee with evaluating several key areas in making its recommendations. They include the methods by which payments are made to eligible states and counties; the impact of revenues from historical multiple use of federal lands on states and counties; the economic environmental, and social benefits of federal lands to counties and reviewing the costs to counties resulting from the presence of federal lands. The committee held at least six listening sessions throughout the country to understand better the impact that the presence of these federal lands has on counties where they are located. The input gathered from these listening sessions was ultimately used to write the committee's report, which was published in February 2003. What did the committee's report find? It found what many communities in my district have known for at least the last decade: that the decline in timber receipts from federal lands has had a devastating economic impact on these rural communities. While communities acknowledge the benefits associated with the presence of public lands within their counties, including improved quality of life, recreational opportunities, and the revenue coming into their communities through travel and tourism, the committee validated the claims that these benefits are outweighed by the degradation of county roads and schools that has resulted from the decline in timber receipts. This not only creates access issues for individuals wishing to recreate on public lands, but also creates safety concerns for transporting children to schools, responding to emergencies and day-to-day travel. This unfortunate reality especially holds true in the counties I represent in eastern Oregon. Between 1990-1999 the counties in this region saw Forest Service payments from timber receipts and other generated revenues drop by 87 percent. In light of the rapid decline of timber receipts reaching these communities, Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. This act stabilized timber revenue dependent counties by providing a temporary ``safety-net'' payment to forest counties and schools at 85 percent of the average of their three highest receipt years from 1986-1999. The legislation also provided an additional 15 percent to support community-based projects, like hazardous fuels treatments taking place on federal lands. Madam Speaker, the authorization for the Forest Counties Payments Committee expired several weeks ago, on October 11, before it was able to examine fully the impact of the County Schools legislation. More importantly, if the committee's term is not extended, it will not have the opportunity to examine the potential effect that the implementation of the National Fire Plan or the Healthy Forests Initiative will have on America's forested counties. The Chairman of this committee, Mark Evans, stated in a letter to Chairman Pombo, ``. . . the Committee did not have adequate time to consider ways to integrate the Healthy Forests Initiative and National Fire Plan with future payment options. The timing of development of these two programs along with a 18-month timeframe imposed on the Committee to produce a final report precluded full consideration of possible options.'' Madam Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks of Chairman Evans. We need to pass this legislation to allow the Payments Committee to continue its good work. It goes without saying that its future findings will lay the foundation as we move towards the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. I'd like to once again thank the efforts of Chairman Pombo and Chairman Goodlatte in getting this legislation to the floor in an expeditious fashion. I urge the House to adopt this extension and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, later this evening South Salem High School in Salem, Oregon will kick off the school's 50th anniversary celebration by inducting the inaugural class into its Athletic Hall of Fame. In total, 14 athletes, three coaches, one team and two community boosters will be honored in what I am sure will be a ceremony filled with many memories of the past and pride for what the South Salem ``Saxon'' community has accomplished. Lara Tiffin ('86), Athletic Director, Guido Caldarazzo, Interim Principal, and the entire selection committee should be recognized for their enormous contributions in putting together these ceremonies. Although my district does not include Salem, as a member of the Oregon Legislature I spent much of my time in Salem, and my long time chief of staff and his fiancee are both South Salem graduates, so I feel a part of that community in many ways. Those of us in Congress who travel extensively throughout our districts recognize the unique role high school athletics plays in our local communities. High school athletics is a bonding experience for the young men and women competitors and a powerful social environment for the student body at large. The athletic fields and gymnasiums of our local high schools are a gathering place for parents, families and community leaders, and the team's accomplishments are often a source of pride for local newspapers and media. Perhaps above all high school athletics is a forum where coaches pass on lessons of life--not just plays from a playbook. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating South Salem High School on its 50th anniversary and congratulating the inaugural class of the South Salem Athletic Hall of Fame. They include: Gary Allen ('63), Gary Barbour ('72), Phil Brus ('72), Phil Burkland ('55), Dana Collins Amack ('56), Gary Edmonds ('68), Scott Freeburn ('67), Bob Horn ('72), Dave Johnson ('63), Daniel Moore ('58), Bruce Patterson ('56), Neil Scheidel ('55), Jack Scott ('57), and Greg Specht ('58) as athletes. Dick Ballantyne (basketball '54-'70), Lee Gustafson (football '54-'60) and Marv Heater (football '61-'72), as coaches. Pappy Aschenbrenner (Principal '54-'72) and Phil Webb ('54) as special ``Community Members.'' And the entire 1954 football team who in their first year of existence were State co-champions. Way to go, Saxons!

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 3161, I stand here today to express my strong opposition to yesterday's decision by the U.S. District Court in Oklahoma. As of September of this year, 16 percent of all Oregonians, that is 541,117 citizens, have made the decision to be on the do-not-call list; 16 percent. These citizens have expressed their rights to uninterrupted free speech at the dinner table and the breakfast table and the lunch table, and the middle of the night. Earlier this year, I received a call from Mr. Chad De Gennaro of Grants Pass, Oregon, that best summarizes the frustration that I think all of us have felt after getting these unsolicited phone calls in our homes when we did not want them. Chad said, ``As only one person, I cannot single-handedly defend myself against telemarketing companies with banks of telephones and hundreds of phone solicitors. No matter how many times I say that I do not want to be called again, sure enough, I wind up getting called again, and at all times of the day.'' Mr. Speaker, 541,117 Oregonians looked to the Federal Government, to us, to protect them from these unsolicited phone calls and trusted that this list would allow them some peace and quiet in their homes. That is what the FTC's list would have provided on October 1. Here in Congress, we understood from the FTC that they had the authority to prepare and implement this list. The FTC believed they had the right to create this list; and more importantly, the citizens of Oregon and across America knew and believed that the FTC was going to protect them by implementing this list and this legislation. Only the U.S. District Court of Oklahoma thought otherwise. Mr. Speaker, I join my chairman and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today in support of this legislation. I appreciate the quick action of our chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), in moving this bill forward so that we can protect ourselves from calls we do not want coming into our phones and into our homes.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today representing the second largest district geographically in the Nation in the House, other than the five States that are only single-Member States, so I know something about rural health care. I spent 5 years on a community hospital board. I am still a private employer, so I see that side of health insurance. My in-laws are retired and face this battle about lack of medical prescription drug coverage under Medicare. My parents battled that until their death. They paid for their own prescription drugs out of their own pocket. The issue that we are trying to resolve here in this Congress is for the first time in 40 years expanding Medicare so that seniors can have access to affordable prescription drugs. It is not easy to do. It is not simple to do. It is very difficult to do, to get it right. But I think we are very, very close in getting it right this time. We have passed the biggest rural health care package probably in the history of this House. We are adding $25 billion in additional rural health care for the country in addition to what we already spend, $25 billion over 10 years, for some very good provisions. In the committee I supported increasing the access to rural home health care, a 5 percent increase in payments. I have supported efforts to add additional funding for physicians to locate in remote and underserved areas in rural communities. In my State, though, while certainly these are all issues, the biggest issue I hear from medical providers is the runaway cost of malpractice insurance because of the claims and the litigation. That is driving specialists out of their specialties. I was in a community in my district this summer, a fellow who delivered babies says he is getting out of the GYN part of OB-GYN. They are not going to be dealing with that. We had five doctors deliver babies in one county in my district, and they are down to two, and those two are having their premiums subsidized now by the local hospital. We have passed medical malpractice reform in this House to try and make sure that people have access to their doctors. It is time for the other body to act. I know many of my colleagues on the other side tonight could not support us on that. That is a problem in rural health care delivery as well that needs to be addressed. But the crazy thing to me tonight is to hear that somehow we are not going to help seniors with this bill. We are spending $400 billion over 10 years to provide a prescription drug benefit and additional help to our hospitals and our physicians in our rural communities, $400 billion. Any dollar you take to spend somewhere other than prescription drugs comes out of our ability to help seniors most in need to provide prescription drugs. And so I think that is important to remember here. Those of us who have kids, they want everything in Toys R Us, but you cannot have everything in Toys R Us. You have to make choices. What we have chosen is to put the biggest benefit possible into those seniors most in need. That is why a senior, low-income, $12,000 a year, will have their prescription drugs paid for other than a very small copayment. They will not have a premium. They will not have a deductible. They are covered. But if you are a Ross Perot and making $65,000 or more a year, that benefit phases out. It is an irony to me to hear the other side talk about tax cuts for the rich, but they want free pharmaceuticals for the rich. I think with the limited resources we have, it ought to go to the poor, those in need. Finally, this is not me, this is a Congressional Budget Office report that says under both acts, the House and the Senate bill, CBO estimates that all Medicare beneficiaries would have access to prescription drug coverage. This report goes on to say that in the House bill, CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan, independent, estimates that about 5 percent of the part D participants, that would be under this bill, would be enrolled in reduced-risk plans in 2006 with that share declining gradually in succeeding years. We have heard a lot of political rhetoric tonight. CBO cuts to the chase. Both plans provide guaranteed access to prescription drugs for America's senior citizens. Both plans do that, the House and the Senate. We do it differently. We think on our side we do it more effectively, because in 23 years, if we do not change how Medicare operates, it goes completely in the red. I do not think Congress is going to let it go broke. The point is here, we are trying to create a new benefit with a new idea that says we can use market forces to drive down the cost of drugs so we can provide better care to the poorest seniors in America. That is what our bill does. That is what is being negotiated in a bipartisan, bicameral effort as we speak. This is not the time to upend that, nor is it the time to politicize it and end up another year going by without seniors having access to affordable prescription drugs.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, it was the brother of a man from The Dalles, the son of parents from Pendleton that perished, the extent of the tragedy that struck America, the terrible terrorist acts of September 11 spread like tentacles across the country. While our innocence was shattered that day, America's resolve and our commitment and unity was invigorated and strengthened. We have responded domestically in strengthening our security. We have responded internationally in building coalitions to take the battle to the terrorists. We have had great victories. We face great challenges. Together as a country, and as a Congress under the leadership of our President, we are making a difference for our first responders at home and to secure our borders, to make air traffic safer and air travel safer, and to root out the terrorists where they are, instead of waiting for them to come back here. We have seized 1,400 bank accounts and $200 million, two-thirds of al Qaeda's leadership were killed, and 42 of 55 of Saddam Hussein's top advisors, strategists and planners of hate are no longer a problem. We all know there is more work to do. As a Congress and as a country, we must resolve to do that work, to do it with a clear focus and a great unity which befits this great country of ours. Together we are Americans, and may we ask for God's blessing for our leadership and our future.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I find the gentlewoman's comments disturbing for this reason. What we really heard her say, and what we are hearing on this motion is, we are only going to deal with something when it is a crisis. And that is all we are going to deal with is what is the crisis of the moment. That is a poor way to do public policy. In fact, when the other side of the aisle had the opportunity to offer an alternative to the energy bill, they did not include these reliability standards in the opportunity that was offered in the committee, nor the second time when it was offered on the floor, nor the third time when they offered an alternative on the motion to recommit. So three chances, and then their lights went out. Now we have a crisis, and now this is all we are going to deal with, when it was not something they wanted to deal with in the bill to begin with from their side. Why would we jettison additional funding for LIHEAP when we know that natural gas prices are going through the roof and the poorest among us are going to have trouble paying their heating bills this winter? Are we going to wait for a crisis then deal with LIHEAP then, when we can deal with it here in this bill? If this motion to instruct were held, we would not be dealing with it. Why would we get rid of the provisions in this bill that deal with market transparency requirements that require increased FERC enforcement authority to prevent anticompetitive practices in electricity markets? Why would we not deal with that? Is there controversy over that? No, but there is no crisis at the moment. There was in 2001 in the West, when we had rolling brownouts and blackouts in California and prices through the roof. Why do we not solve that here? Why would we walk away? Because the crisis is behind us? I do not think that makes sense. What we found after our blackouts in 1996 and after 2001 is that the grid needed investment and improvement. We came to the Congress, those from the Northwest, and we came to the President, and the President agreed and the Congress agreed to give Bonneville additional borrowing authority so we could begin constructing the additions that were needed in our grid. We needed to invest. That has been done. That is what is needed around the country; and this legislation, H.R. 6, has provisions in it both to encourage research and development of new technology to make the wires more capable of transmitting more power as well as incentives to help expand the grid so it has the capacity to carry the power where it is needed when it is needed. Those provisions, if this motion were to prevail and be followed by the committee, would all be stricken. All we would deal with is the reliability standards, and that does not make sense to me. There are many other provisions in this bill to help in natural gas, to help with domestic production of oil that we should deal with. They are separate, yes. They are getting domestic oil production up and domestic gas production up and gas and oil where we need it and when we need it to keep prices in check. Those are important. And, no, they are not related to the blackout. Of course not. But they are related when you pull up to the pump and pay $2.10 per gallon, or when you turn on your heater or your hot water tank and you are paying $3, $4, $6, and $7 for natural gas. We need to deal with energy policy for this country in a comprehensive and thorough manner. This legislation does that. I ask my colleagues to vote against the motion to instruct.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

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