Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I admire his legislation and will take a close look at it. The State of Oregon for many years has done precisely that, buy an insurance policy to help pay for the cost of fire fighting. Of course, that cost continues to go up; but we do participate in that. So I think it is a good idea to consider. So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I rise in great, great frustration about where we find ourselves today, especially with the lack of notice that these funds were going to be cut out, when we thought they were going to be there.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today because of the fire fighting funds being stricken from this bill. This is an enormous problem for those of us from the West. Outside the city of Bend, Oregon, a fire burned 600 acres yesterday. This morning that fire is up to 4,000 acres; it is burning. The Forest Service tells us they will run out of money to fight these fires next week. OMB says we can borrow from other accounts; they can get us through until the fall. Here is what happens year after year after year after year. We get through all the paperwork and the environmental process to be able to go out to do the healthy forest things that need to be done to thin the forests, get out the flammable fuels, do all that work. We get into fire season. We have not budgeted for it properly. We pull the money out to fight the fires. And what does the Forest Service have to do? They borrow from the accounts, and they are ready to do the work to make America's forests healthier by doing the thinning, and they put the work off for another year. We come back in the fall and the winter, we replenish the accounts for the fires, and we do the process all over again. We delay what we need to do to fix problem that will get us to where we do not have as expensive a fire to fight, because it would not be as catastrophic. Mr. Speaker, if I could enter into an unscripted colloquy with the chairman, my concern is this. Do we have any assurance from the Forest Service that they will be able to go ahead with these contracts that they are planning to let for this summer and the work that they are planning to do, to do forest thinning and fuels reduction and categorical exclusion work to make our forests healthier and safer, or will any of those funds be pulled back to go into fire fighting instead?

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

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. And we are appreciative of that.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand what the gentleman says, and he has been most gracious and wonderful to work with on this issue. But the problem is, as we wait, the forests burn, the work does not get done, the issue is compounded. This is penny wise and pound foolish.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pay tribute to the community of Nyssa in eastern Oregon's Malheur County and to commemorate the passage of an important milestone in the history of the town. This weekend the people of Nyssa will commemorate the centennial anniversary of the incorporation of their community. This is an event that symbolizes the endurance of the eastern Oregon way of life and the continuity that exists between the earliest settlers of our state and the people who proudly identify themselves as Oregonians today. There is some debate about the origin of the name Nyssa. Some say it is an acronym for the New York Sheep Shearing Association, which sounds plausible enough given the tradition of shepherding throughout the town's history. Others insist that the town was named by the daughter of a railroad engineer who was reading a book on ancient history and named the town after St. Gregory of Nyssa. Whatever the source of the name, this much is clear: Nyssa stands for the small town values that still echo in the hearts of the people who call it home. Known as the Gateway City to Oregon, Nyssa is located on the banks of the Snake River on the Idaho-Oregon border. Nearby the historic Oregon Trail, which brought thousands of settlers across the continent to the West, remains visible to this day. Nyssa's history as a town began in 1883 with the arrival of the Oregon Short Line Railroad, though the area was familiar terrain to the fur traders who operated along the Snake River in the early 1800s. The town's first Post Office was established in 1889 and the incorporation of Nyssa occurred in 1903, when the town had gained enough residents to merit elected city officials. In the generations that have followed the founding of Nyssa, the community has been home to hardworking farmers and ranchers who have made their homes in the high desert of Oregon. The community was immeasurably enriched by the revival of federal irrigation projects in the area, such as the Owyhee Dam which was completed in 1932 to provide water for 120,000 acres of arid land surrounding Nyssa. The miracle of irrigated agriculture made the high desert of Oregon bloom and made possible the way of life that continues today. In the 1930s, many citizens of the Great Plains relocated to the area, drawn by the warmth of the people and the quality of life offered by the community. By the late 1930s, the number of acres being irrigated had attracted the sugar beet industry, and Nyssa saw the opening of the Amalgamated Sugar Company, a sugar processing plant that came into operation in Nyssa in 1938. Agriculture remains the base of the local economy, and most businesses cater to farm production and marketing of products, which include sugar, onions, potatoes, corn, mint, and wheat. Like many communities in Oregon, the growth in agriculture during the first half of the century brought immigrant families to Nyssa to work the land. Many Hispanic families traveled to the area, where they raised their children and established roots that endure to this day. Nyssa also became home to many Dutch immigrants and later a number of Japanese-Americans who were interned during World War II. Many of these internees remained in the area after the war ended, where they continue to add to the richness of the town's history. Despite the ups and downs of the Oregon farm economy and the need for many townspeople to find work outside of town, the people of Nyssa have remained loyal to their community. The town has maintained an excellent school system and the population remains stable at 3,100. Mr. Speaker, since Nyssa was founded it has been home to hearty, self-reliant people who are proud of their history, loyal to their families and community, and representative of the rural way of life that still means as much to the people who live here as it did a hundred years ago. It is both a privilege and an honor to represent the good people of Nyssa in the U.S. House of Representatives. I congratulate them on the occasion of the Centennial of their community, and I look forward to traveling to Nyssa this weekend to share in the celebration with my good friends.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise today to express my strong support for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado, which is designed to force the government of Indonesia to do what until now it has utterly failed to do, bring to justice the murderers who killed two American citizens and wounded eight others in Papua, Indonesia, in August of 2002. Among the victims of that tragic attack were Ted Burgon of Sun River, Oregon, in my district, and Rick Spier of Colorado, both of whom lost their lives. Ted's wife Nancy was wounded in the ambush, as were Ken Balk and Saundra Hopkins, also of Sun River, Oregon, and their young daughter. A number of other members of their party suffered injuries at the hands of the terrorists who perpetrated this cowardly attack. Mr. Chairman, despite the time that has elapsed since the tragedy in Indonesia, the murderers of Burgon and Spier have not been brought to justice. Perhaps most disturbingly there seems to have been little effort on the part of the Indonesian government, which receives substantial aid from the people of the United States, to ensure that these killers are made to pay for their crimes. Indeed, strong evidence suggests that government officials have actively thwarted American investigations into the attack. This amendment is intended to correct this inequity. Mr. Chairman, since the attack occurred, evidence has been brought to light suggesting that members of the Indonesian military, and not a rogue band of criminals, bears responsibility for the ambush. Following the attack, the Indonesian police conducted an inquiry and ultimately issued a report asserting that, and I quote, ``There is a strong possibility that the attack was perpetrated by members of the Indonesian National Army Force.'' Indeed, the attack occurred less than a half a mile away from the Indonesian military checkpoints. Moreover, various news services have reported that U.S. intelligence agencies have intercepted messages between Indonesian military officials implicating army personnel in the attack. Mr. Chairman, from the beginning, Indonesian authorities have been less than cooperative in assisting the FBI investigations into the murders. Investigative agents were denied the opportunity to interview witnesses without Indonesian authorities present and were not permitted to bring forensic evidence back to the United States for analysis. It is my firm belief that if prosecuting the murderers of American citizens on Indonesian soil is not a priority for the government of Indonesia, they should not expect to receive assistance from the people of the United States. My colleague's amendment would prevent Indonesia from receiving international military education and training funds until the President certifies to the Congress that the Indonesian government and the Indonesian military are cooperating with American authorities in their investigation into the attack. Given the strong possibility that members of the Indonesian military were involved in the ambush, it would be an affront to the memory of Ted Burgon and Rick Spier, as well as the grieving families they left behind, to continue providing funding to the Indonesian armed forces. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for the amendment offered by my colleague from Colorado, which is designed to force the government of Indonesia to do what until now it has utterly failed to do--bring to justice the murderers who killed two American citizens and wounded eight others in Papua, Indonesia, in August of 2002. Among the victims of that tragic attack were Ted Burgon of Sunriver, Oregon, and Rick Spier of Colorado, both of whom lost their lives. Ted's wife, Nancy Burgon, was wounded in the ambush, as were Ken Balk and Saundra Hopkins, also of Sunriver, and their young daughter, Taia. A number of other members of their party suffered injuries at the hands of the terrorists who perpetrated this cowardly attack. Mr. Chairman, despite the time that has elapsed since the tragedy in Indonesia, the murderers of Burgon and Spier have not been brought to justice. Perhaps most disturbingly, there seems to have been little effort on the part of the Indonesian government, which receives substantial aid from the people of the United States, to ensure that these killers are made to pay for their crimes. Indeed, strong evidence suggests that government officials have actively thwarted the American investigation into the attack. This amendment is intended to correct this inequity. Mr. Chairman, since the attack occurred, evidence has been brought to light suggesting that members of the Indonesian military, and not a rogue band of criminals, bears responsibility for the ambush. Following the attack, the Indonesian police conducted an inquiry and ultimately issued a report asserting that, ``there is a strong possibility that the [attack] was perpetrated by members of the Indonesian National Army Force.'' Indeed, the attack occurred less than a half-mile away from an Indonesian military checkpoint. Moreover, various news services have reported that U.S. intelligence agencies have intercepted messages between Indonesian military officials implicating army personnel in the attack. Mr. Chairman, from the beginning Indonesian authorities have been less than cooperative in assisting with the FBI investigation into the murders. Investigative agents were denied the opportunity to interview witnesses without Indonesian authorities present and were not permitted to bring forensic evidence back to the United States for analysis. It is my firm belief that if prosecuting the murderers of American citizens on Indonesian soil is not a priority for the government of Indonesia, they should not expect to receive assistance from the people of the United States. My colleague's amendment would prevent Indonesia from receiving International Military Education and Training (IMET) funds until the President certifies to Congress that the Indonesian government and the Indonesian military are cooperating with American authorities in their investigation into the attack. Given the strong possibility that members of the Indonesian military were involved in the ambush, it would be an affront to the memory of Ted Burgon and Rick Spier, as well as the grieving families they left behind, to continue providing funding to the Indonesian armed forces. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I come from the great Northwest, and I am proud of the forests we have. My wife and I love to go out and kayak on the lakes, and we love to hike in the woods. Generally, you have to drive to get there. And when you get there, you want green trees, not black trees. Now, we are not a State that dumps our garbage or our sludge in the ocean. We are a State that is actually pretty proud about how we have managed and restored rivers that were polluted, how we have created greenways and such. I thought I heard the gentleman from Florida talk about how we have commercial logging in Federal parks. That is prohibited by law, and that is not even the subject of this debate. I know a lot of people who think wilderness is the same thing as a park, is the same thing as a national forest. You cannot do anything in a wilderness area but hike in there and out. And in some you have to have a permit to do that. My colleagues, this is not about commercial logging. It is not. Not at all. This is about how we manage the public's land. And, yes, you have every right to have a voice in this, as I do. I just wish you would come out and see what we live in; how these lands are managed. Do my colleagues know that we had enormous fires in Oregon last year and this year; fires that burned so hot they create a tornado effect that does a blow-down of trees? The embers blow 2 to 3 miles in advance. Those embers do not look down and say, ``Oops, wilderness; oops, roadless; oh, private land.'' We need balance here, and this is not it.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I fully concur with the gentleman about basing this on science. In fact, when we had the National Academy of Sciences review the biological opinions that set up the water cut- off in 2001, the initial findings came back and said the decisions by the government were not backed up by science, and we are waiting for the final review now. This bill is a rifle shot at a very tiny piece of a huge problem. And as I mentioned in my comments, fixing the fish screen on the A canal, dealing with fish passage at Chiloquin, which will probably result in removal of that dam which I will support if that is what the consensus is, those are the things we can deal with.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, let me address this issue of the fish kill last year, because the science is really in dispute. Dave Vogel says, In 1988, and he is a scientist who has studied this carefully, a run totaling 215,322 salmon occurred on the Klamath River with identical flow conditions: 2,130 cfs in 1988; 2,129 cfs in 2002, but no fish die-off occurred. In 2002, there were 132,000 salmon and 33,000 died. But why? Two dramatic and uncharacteristic cooling and warming trends occurred during late August and September where the Upper Klamath River was still naturally unsuitably warm that probably both attracted fish into the lower river and then exposed the fish to chronically and cumulatively stressful conditions. The point being, in 1988 we had nearly double the number of salmon coming back, there was no fish kill, and we had the same amount of water as in 2002 where we had about half the run coming back and we did lose fish. None of us wants to see a fish kill. We are all trying to work together; and I would welcome the opportunity to work with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), to find a global solution. But this is not it. This is not the solution. I have to raise an issue that was raised on this floor last night by my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Oregon, when he told the House that he would offer an amendment today, and I quote from his words last night: ``That would reduce water-intensive agriculture in one of the wildlife refuges in the United States where there is unregulated agriculture practicing on leased land dealing with the Klamath Basin.'' I would suggest that that was a misstatement. It is a misstatement because, first of all, these lands are governed by the Kuchel Act passed in 1964 that says: ``Such lands shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior for the purpose of major waterfowl management, but with full consideration to optimum agricultural use that is consistent therein.'' The leases, and I have a copy here of the draft leases, these are what the farmers have to agree to. And it includes information relating to the previous year's operations which include a report of planting date, cultivar variety, seed and seed piece treatment, crop yield, and units of tons by acre, and harvest date; on and on, including what pesticides are used, irrigation, tillage, burning, fertilizers on each crop. This is regulated, I would suggest, more than the Chinese regulate their agriculture. Finally, these farmers work very hard to reduce pesticide use, and every year they are evaluated and they enter into probably the most progressive activity when it comes to limiting and reducing pesticide use that we have, and that is the integrated pest management concept. Time and again, they have entered into these agreements; and time and again, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and even the courts have found that these lands are being used in a compatible way. Now, it is important to understand as well that even if we could find the water that was freed up by limiting crop restrictions on these 2,250 acres, it would not go to the refuges. It would go to other uses having higher priority, which could include private farmland. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service realized this in their determination made in 2002. Environmental groups sued on that determination and were unsuccessful. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also found that based on a USGS study that if you did not irrigate, I mean if you took irrigation completely off of these leased lands, at all, only a minor amount of water would be freed up because there would be a substantial consumptive use of water by the weeds. Now, their amendment basically tells farmers in my district, and 62 percent of my folks have these leases, that they cannot grow onions, potatoes or alfalfa. They can only grow grain crops. And somehow, that is going to solve the problem or a part of the problem. What my colleagues may not understand is that onions use 1.88 acre feet of water per acre. Potatoes, the villain from last year, consume 1.73 acre feet of water per acre. The very grain crops that you want them to only be able to grow consume 1.87 acre feet of water per acre, more than the potatoes use, equal to what the onions grow. Now, sure, maybe alfalfa consumes more water. But do my colleagues know what? If we just turned this over to wetlands, wetlands themselves consume 2\1/ 2\ to 3\1/2\ times the amount of water that potatoes and onions consume. So if you turned this over to the noxious weeds, they will drink up more than these farmers will. Finally, these people have been devastated economically down there as farmers, and they have done enormous work to try and solve this problem. We spent $16 million putting in a new sophisticated fish screen in the canal that now routes nearly a million sucker larva down to three-eighths of an inch back into the river or into the lake. That would have languished forever. We got it done. In conclusion, we are making efforts through the EQIP money that my colleague from Oregon voted against when he voted against the farm bill to do water reduction efforts to have more efficient irrigation systems. That farm bill, too, which the gentleman voted against, included the study, the 1-year study for removal of Chiloquin Dam, which has now been completed which we restored access to 95 percent of the habitat for suckers on the Sprague River. It was a principal blockage and reason why the suckers were limited in the first place. My point is, we are taking action to try and solve the problem. This does not help.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding me this time. With great respect for my colleague and the committee, I rise in support of this amendment for this reason: When you get out my district in Oregon and over half of our lands are public lands. And the concerns raised by my colleague from the Lammot Valley are valid. People want to be able to go out and take the family, drive out one of these Forest Service roads, park their car, and walk out in the woods. They cannot do that now if they do not go buy a permit. If my colleagues want to talk about confusion, there are parts of my district where now you have to buy 3, 4, or 5 permits, depending on which part of public land you want to go on, whether it is a public park or the National Forest Service or the county or whoever. I have to tell my colleagues, there are a lot of people who want us in this Congress to vet this issue better. I think it is only appropriate. I have no problem paying a fee for a permit to plow the snow where I go skiing, and I do not know of anybody who does. I have no problem paying for developed campground areas, and I laud the effect of this program in that respect. But I resent the part of the program that says simply to take a walk out in the woods and look at trees in an undeveloped area, I have to go to some park ranger district somewhere or some Forest Service office somewhere that I do not even know where it is, maybe, and buy a permit to put in my window and spend 50 bucks or so so I can take my family out. I represent the 12th poorest district in the United States, and over half of our land is Federal land, and this is a burden these people should not have to shoulder. So I support the gentleman's amendment. I think it needs to be vetted better in our authorizing committee, and I look forward to that opportunity.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Ambient temperature as much as water temperature are both issues. I will be happy to discuss this further with the gentleman.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

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

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I believe that management concerns should be addressed through acquisition exchanges and ask for the gentleman's help in this area as well.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that and thank the gentleman for his work.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from North Carolina in a colloquy regarding the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management Protection Act of 2000 as it relates to access to private inholdings. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the Bureau of Land Management needs to be reminded of its responsibilities to provide for the continuation of normal and generally used modes of access to private inholdings. This is especially important now because the Bureau of Land Management is in the process of finalizing its land management plans for the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. I ask for the gentleman's assistance in this matter.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

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 include extraneous material on this legislation.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 215, a resolution to honor and congratulate the chambers of commerce for their efforts that contribute to the improvement of communities and the strengthening of local and regional economies. At the Federal level, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce makes up the world's largest not-for-profit business federation. It represents 3 million businesses, 3,000 State and local chambers, 830 business associations and 92 American Chambers of Commerce abroad. These groups are of all sizes and shapes, from large Fortune 500 companies to home- based one-person operations. A full 96 percent of the membership is made up of businesses with fewer than 100 employees. The real work that is done in the trenches is done by local and regional chambers of commerce. It is these organizations that employ labor law experts, human resource professionals and pro-business staff lobbyists within one organization to bring businesses resources that they need. They provide help and information from the big picture of public policy to the nitty-gritty of complex employment laws. In addition, these local and regional chambers give small businesses a legislative voice to promote business, protect the private sector from excessive government mandates and help prepare States for prosperous futures. Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleagues as well that these local chambers of commerce are leaders in their communities, assisting in civic organizations and in community pride work, cleaning up communities, helping neighbors, working on community events, helping for charitable causes, the men and women, the entrepreneurs of our communities who are really the success story of our economy. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 215, supporting and honoring our chambers of commerce and their members. They offer unprecedented benefits, discounts and opportunities to business, which helps make States, regions and localities strong, healthy and vibrant. Mr. Speaker, I reserve balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 296) recognizing the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Harley-Davidson Motor Company, which has been a significant part of the social, economic, and cultural heritage of the United States and many other nations and a leading force for product and manufacturing innovation throughout the 20th century.

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 include extraneous material on this legislation.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 296, a resolution recognizing the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Harley- Davidson Motor Company. The history of the Harley-Davidson Company is the story of an American dream. Four young men began to experiment with the internal combustion engine in a tiny wooden shed. The motorcycle they developed and built goes on to serve for 100,000 miles and under five owners. That is the beginning of a legacy that has lasted a century and continues to go on strong today. Harley-Davidson is an American institution, Mr. Speaker. The company also has a close tie with the American law enforcement community and with the U.S. during times of war. Harley-Davidson built motorcycles for the Detroit Police Department in 1906 and went on to build cycles for use by allied forces during World War I and built more than 90,000 motorcycles for the U.S. and allied forces during World War II. This is a company that has weathered the ups and downs of the American economy, during times of war and of peace. And in keeping with the spirit of the United States, it never gave up, never stopped striving for success and always continued to push forward. Not only is the Harley-Davidson a strong employer and provider of an excellent motorcycle, the company also has a heart. For 23 years, Harley-Davidson has supported the Muscular Dystrophy Association, raising over $40 million in company, dealer, customer and supplier contributions. Harley-Davidson hopes to raise a minimum of $5 million as part of its Road to a Cure during the 100th anniversary celebration. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 296, celebrating Harley-Davidson's 100th anniversary, as well as its amazing accomplishments and achievements in providing motorcycles, jobs and excitement over the course of a century. While I have never been a Harley-Davidson motorcycle owner, I can tell my colleagues that my neighbors are, and they are emphatic about it, I would say nearly addicted, over Harley-Davidson's motorcycles. In fact, one of my neighbors has an antique that he has restored; and it is a gorgeous bike that he rode back to I think it is Sturgis for the big confab of motorcyclists. So to those Harley-Davidson's riders in this Chamber now, congratulations on a great motorcycle; and to Harley-Davidson, the maker of those motorcycles, congratulations on your centennial. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. For 3 years the House Republicans have done what the Democrats failed to do for the 30 years they were in the majority and that is pass prescription drug coverage for seniors. And every time we have moved to pass legislation, our colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle have done their best to throw up road blocks and Medi-scare, complete this year to buying TV ads already, attacking members of the committee who voted for prescription drug coverage. They want to make it a campaign issue, and that is wrong. My parents until their death relied upon Medicare, and they paid for their prescription drugs out of their own pockets because their plan did not cover it. My in-laws and others in my district need this help, and they need it now. Our budget sets aside $400 billion, $400 billion to help provide prescription drug coverage for seniors. The last time the Democrats put forward a budget, they reserved 360-some billion; $400 billion is what we are putting forward over the next 10 years. Their plan, for which they did not even have a budget, would cost a trillion dollars. Now, on the one hand they will say Medicare is not going insolvent, and yet my colleague from New Jersey just blamed Republicans for whatever insolvency there may be. You cannot have it both ways. The way we want it is not to negotiate with ourselves. We want to negotiate with the Senate to come out with the best package possible to make sure that every senior in America has access to affordable prescription drug coverage, and coverage that we can afford to continue for the length of Medicare, which should be forever. We have got to get this right. We have to do it right. We have to use the competitive forces of the marketplace to make sure that we squeeze out the excesses so that we can extend the benefit, especially to those who need it most. And our legislation does that. It targets the greatest relief, the greatest help to the seniors most in need. And representing the 12th poorest district in this country, I will tell you, I am proud of this bill. I am proud of what it will do for our low-income seniors, and I am proud of what it will do for Medicare and America.