Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I want to take the opportunity to publicly thank a member of my Washington, D.C. staff for his years of service to me and to the people of the Second District of Oregon. Jeff was raised in Central Oregon, graduating from Mountain View High School and then Willamette University. Upon graduating from college, he embarked to Washington, D.C. to begin his public service as a staff member to my predecessor, then-House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Smith. Jeff honed his skills in the Congress immediately. Upon my election to Congress, I was fortunate to successfully recruit Jeff and he joined my staff the day I took office in 1999. He started out as a legislative assistant. Jeff is a quick study, Mr. Speaker. He tackled some of the most complex and vexing issues that face Oregonians and Americans. From how we safely dispose of chemical nerve agents in Eastern Oregon to how we get better quality and more affordable health care to rural America, Jeff learned these issues quickly and worked on creative solutions. Within a year, Jeff added the title of press secretary to his resume. Now, I have to tell you there's probably nothing more challenging than being a press secretary to a Member of Congress who was a press secretary to a Member of Congress. Jeff rose to the challenge quickly and, frankly, made a difficult job look easy. He got to know the reporters and editors in my district and understood their needs and their deadlines. He excelled at the press secretary duties while continuing to work on his portfolio of legislative issues. This week Jeff leaves the Nation's capital to return to Oregon where he will attend law school at the University of Oregon. I know he will do as well pursuing a legal career as he did in his work for me. While I wish him every success it goes without saying he will be difficult to replace. Jeff, thank you for a job well done.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, recently I said goodbye to a member of my Washington, DC staff who started with me the day I took office back in 1999. Melissa Galvan served as my manager and scheduler. From managing my schedule and our interns, to handling the office finances and many other important functions, Melissa performed admirably and with dedication. Melissa was raised in the great state of Oregon and began honing her skills early at Corvallis High School and my college alma mater, the University of Oregon. Upon graduation from college, Melissa embarked to Washington, D.C. to serve the public as a staff member to my predecessor, then-House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Smith. Upon my election, I was fortunate to successfully recruit Melissa. From day one of my first term, I--and the residents of the Second Congressional District of Oregon--benefited from Melissa's expertise and affable personality. I never had to worry about having a seat on a plane, because I knew that Melissa had it taken care of properly. Considering the fluid nature of the schedule in Congress and the fact that I commute back to my district most every week, I assure you that securing a seat on a plane at the last minute is not an easy task. I never had to worry about missing a meeting, because Melissa had it covered. Visitors to my office were always made to feel welcome and cared for because of Melissa. Simply put, Melissa was a delight to work with and always displayed care and determination during her service on Capitol Hill. She also became a real pal to my son, Anthony, and kept all the ``guys'' in the office in line, too. We miss her friendly smile and upbeat attitude, which she has taken to a new job in the private sector. We also are very excited for her and her fiancee, Jason Vaillancourt, an outstanding young man and professional staff member on the House Agriculture Committee. They will marry this fall. Melissa, thanks for your help and a job well done.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I rise today to publicly thank a member of my Washington, D.C. staff for his tireless efforts on behalf of the good people of Oregon's Second Congressional District. Andy Combs recently departed my staff to pursue a law degree at the University of Oregon. I wish him well in this new endeavor and know that he will excel both in law school and as a lawyer. Andy comes from Dora, a small town on the southern Oregon coast. He graduated from my alma mater, the University of Oregon, and after serving admirably as a staff member in the Oregon Legislature he embarked to Washington, D.C. to join my staff. He brought those desirable ``small town values'' to the nation's capital and to how he treated the people who sought assistance from my office. Andy was more than just ``the guy at the front desk.'' He helped families get the inside track to the sights and sounds of Washington, D.C. Time and again, he brought history alive as he led tours of the Capitol for people who had come nearly 3,000 miles so that their children could better understand the federal government and our bold history. Andy arranged their tours, took their calls, answered their questions. In short, Mr. Speaker, Andy made their day and their trip. I can't think of a time during his service in my office that a visitor went away disappointed. He attended faithfully to every detail and literally went the extra mile to make sure families could see the White House, the Capitol and other sights in the area. Moreover, Andy made Oregonians feel at ease and at home when they walked in the door. He possesses that warm and helpful attitude that is too often lacking in a big city. I have a significant stack of letters from Oregonians that took the time to write after their trip to Washington, D.C. to thank me for Andy's treatment of them and his dogged determination to make sure their experience was memorable, Andy was also instrumental in recognizing when something needed to be done, taking the initiative to complete myriad projects and lend others a helping hand. His ability and intellect will serve him well as a member of the bar. And his likeable attitude will serve him well in the courtroom. In short, Mr. Speaker, Andy's a difficult person to replace. Andy, thanks for a job well done and good luck in the future.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, continuing to reserve my right to object, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address what I believe is one of the most outrageous acts committed against American citizens abroad in recent years, the kidnapping of five American citizens working in Ecuador by a band of ruthless terrorists. On October 12, 2000, a number of international oil workers were abducted from an oil field in northern Ecuador by a heavily armed group of terrorists. Mr. Speaker, ``terrorists'' may be too generous a word to describe these thugs, for they were motivated not by ideology but by naked greed. Their intention was to ransom their captives, plain and simple. Among the hostages taken were five American citizens, Arnie Alford, Steve Derry, Jason Weber of Gold Hill, Oregon, in my congressional district, David Bradley of Casper, Wyoming, and Ron Sander of Sunrise Beach, Missouri. The nightmare that began for these men on October 12 would ultimately last 141 days, 4\1/2\ months of deprivation and hardship such as we can scarcely contemplate. These men endured inhumane treatment day after day at the hands of their captors. They suffered from prolonged malnutrition, isolation from loved ones, and relentless physical and mental abuse. Each day was spent marching at gunpoint through the unforgiving jungles of South America, and each night was spent tied up in the terrorists' camps. The diet that sustained the men was as cruel as their surroundings: small portions of rice and occasionally the meat of rodents. The perseverance shown by these brave Americans in the face of such unremitting adversity is a testament to the human spirit. Mr. Speaker, the fear of death hung over the heads of these hostages every day of their ordeal. Sadly, on January 31 of 2001, that fear became a reality when one of the hostages, Ron Sander, was murdered by his kidnappers. His body was discovered riddled with bullets, a brutal act intended to encourage the employers of the hostages to meet the kidnappers' demand. Finally, the nightmare came to an end when the hostages were released from their captivity and handed over to Ecuadoran military authorities. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution first and foremost is to welcome the safe return of our fellow citizens and to mourn the death of Ron Sander, an innocent victim of the greed and malice of cowards. The resolution also recognizes the cooperation of the Ecuadoran authorities who provided invaluable assistance in negotiating the safe return of the hostages. It further acknowledges the employers of the victims, Erickson Air- Crane, Schlumberger Ltd., and Helmerich & Payne, whose commitment to their employees during this ordeal was absolute and unwavering. Finally, House Concurrent Resolution 89 reiterates the United States' commitment to securing justice for the victims of this crime and holding the terrorists accountable for their actions. It also expresses the sense of Congress that the United States must redouble its efforts to prevent future kidnappings and eliminate the threat represented by international terrorist organizations. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to add that I could not be more pleased at the arrest of a number of suspects in this case by the Colombia National Police on June 23. Working in concert with U.S. authorities, the Colombia police arrested 59 people, including eight men accused of participating in this October kidnapping. It is my profound hope that if these men are in fact guilty of this hideous crime, that they will receive swift and severe punishment that they so richly deserve. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Committee on International Relations for moving on this resolution with such great haste, and I appreciate the time of the House to share this. I withdraw my reservation of objection, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), the manager of the bill.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment as I did in both the subcommittee and the full committee for several reasons. First of all, it is without question that the California market was dysfunctional. But we are beginning to see the market respond to FERC's direction, that we have some price mitigation in place. What this amendment does, however, is it has an interesting exemption in it. On line 18 of page 2, it talks about how any power plant that comes online after January 1 of this year would be exempt from this very price cap. Why is that there? It is there because the authors have to admit that this kind of price cap will discourage new production from coming online. Otherwise, why would they have the exemption? And what is there to preclude one of these, quote-unquote, gougers from shutting down their old production facility and running the new one that does not have the price cap? What stops out-of-state producers from selling power into other markets where they do not have this kind of a cap as proposed in this amendment? We could really disrupt the power market that is finally beginning to settle down. How is it settling down? Let me point out that it has changed dramatically and perhaps even caught the California government unaware in this process. They were buying power at $138 a megawatt hour that now because of a change in the market they are dumping for $1 a megawatt hour. The LADWP, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, charged the State of California a price for power that averaged 35 to $40 per watt hour more than that charged by the companies that some call gougers. On a single day in June of 2000, the LADWP raked in $5 million on power sold for $1,000 per megawatt hour. The reason I say that, LADWP is not covered by this amendment. Forty-seven percent of the power sold into California is not covered by this amendment. It would have a disruptive and destructive role in the market if this were passed today.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 187) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to again talk about the saga of the Klamath Basin and the farmers who have lived there and tilled the ground and fed the Nation. As my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, on April 6, they cut off the water. They said, no water for the farmers this year; the suckerfish would prevail. Mr. Speaker, word is finally getting out about this crisis. There have been stories in The New York Times, and today in the Washington Post there is a story. It has been on Fox News and other networks, CNN and others, who are beginning to cover this story and the tragedy that is occurring at ground zero of the Endangered Species Act debate. Today, in the Washington Post, Michael Kelly, a columnist, writes, ``The Endangered Species Act has worked as intended, but it has been exploited by environmental groups whose agenda is to force humans out of lands they wish to see returned to a prehuman state. Never has this been made more nakedly, brutally clear than in the battle of Klamath Falls.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to read today from a couple of letters I have received from constituents. These folks, Bill and Ethel Rust wrote, ``We have not written sooner as shock and disbelief have kept us almost immobilized and so sick at heart. My husband is 76 years old and a Navy veteran of World War II, having lost a brother in this war. We have been ranchers our entire life and depended on this for our livelihood. We are still in shock that our own government has taken this away from us. We recently retired to a small 75-acre alfalfa ranch that was just perfect for us to handle at our age, and you have just destroyed it. Without water, our alfalfa is dying. What are we to do to replace this income? Is the suckerfish more important to you than we are? Having raised nine children to be hard workers and contributors to our society, are we now to apply for welfare or live off our children? ``We have sold our cattle. We are in the process of selling our horses. After a lifetime of getting up in the morning to care for our livestock and ranch chores, what would you suggest we do with our mornings? What reason do you give us to get out of bed? ``We need the help of our government. Will we get that?'' Mr. Speaker, this is typical of hundreds, if not thousands of letters I have received from the people of Klamath Falls. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, this House, prior to the July 4 recess, passed $20 million in aide to the farmers and ranchers of Klamath Basin, and the Senate has now approved that. It will be in conference next week, and soon it should be on the President's desk. Mr. Speaker, today I had the opportunity to speak with President Bush personally about the crisis in the Klamath Basin and he offered his help and urged me to continue to contact and work with Secretaries Norton and Veneman. So later this afternoon, I spoke with Secretary Veneman, Agriculture Secretary, about the problem. Because, Mr. Speaker, the word is getting out, and now the help must get in. Good people are being urged to do bad things, as frustration levels rise in the Klamath Basin. Twenty million dollars, Mr. Speaker, that will be available to these farmers and ranchers in the Klamath Basin sooner rather than later if the U.S. Department of Agriculture acts expeditiously to get these funds that we have approved in this Congress into the hands of farmers whose fields are drying out. The land, instead of green, is parched and brown. Wind is stirring up the dust. The costs continue. Mortgages have to be paid. Equipment payments have to be met. Bankers are knocking on the door. People are scared. Their livelihoods are at stake. We need also to work with USDA to get feed and water for livestock. Literally, a crisis is at the doorstep. We also need in the long term, which has to be shorter, rather than longer, to improve water quality, but moreover, improve water quantity; to get biological opinions for next year's operations plan that are above question that have been blind peer-reviewed so we know the science is valid but, moreover, the conclusions are sound, so that we can open the gates legally and get water into the fields and the farms for the people of the Klamath Basin. Mr. Speaker, we have a crisis on our hands, a crisis that is getting worse, not better, as people's frustration levels rise, not fall. They need our help, Mr. Speaker. They need help in us changing the Endangered Species Act. They need help financially; but most of all, they need the water they were promised so that next year they can plant the crops like they have for the past 85 years. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues in the Oregon congressional delegation, members of both parties, for working with me on this issue, for helping secure the $20 million. It is a start, but it is not the end. It must be distributed rapidly and not parceled out over the months. We need to act. It took an overnight to cut off the water; it cannot take months to get relief to these same people. Mr. Speaker, these people who settled this country were invited there by this Federal Government with the promise of land and water if they would simply homestead the land and produce food for the country. People who were invited to this area were the very people who fought for our freedom in a far-off land. Veterans of America's Armed Forces were given priority. It is our turn now, Mr. Speaker, to step up and take care of those people.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to address my colleagues in this House about the incredible travesty that is occurring in the Klamath Basin in Oregon. What I will do tonight is talk about the background of the Klamath Project, which also includes the Tulelake area of Northern California, and about the devastation that has occurred there because of the Federal Government's decision to overappropriate the water and basically tell the farmers they cannot have a drop this year. That is the first time since this project was created back in 1905 that the Federal Government has failed to keep its word to the people that it enticed, indeed lured, to this basin. You may be able to see to my left here information from the family that sent me this. After each world war, the Federal Government enticed veterans to settle the Klamath Basin with a promise of water for life. You can see an application for permanent water rights. This is a picture of Jack and his wife Helen and their family in Tulelake, California. They were promised this. They were invited out as veterans to settle the reclaimed lake beds of the Klamath Basin, the Tulelake, California, area and to grow food to feed the world, indeed feed the country, indeed settle the West. Let me talk about this basin for a moment, and then I will talk about the science that has gone into these decisions, the disputes that exist about that science, and really why the Klamath Basin has become ground zero in the battle over the Endangered Species Act. First let me give some history. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Irrigation Project, lies within three counties along the Oregon and California borders: Klamath County in Southern Oregon; Modoc and Siskiyou Counties in Northern California. Under the 1902 Reclamation Act, the States of California and Oregon ceded lake and wetland areas of the Klamath Basin to the Federal Government for the purpose of draining and reclaiming land for agricultural homesteading. The United States declared that it would appropriate all unappropriated water use rights in the basin for use by the Klamath Project. So under section 8 of the Reclamation Act, these water use rights would attach to the land irrigated as an appurtenance or appendage to that land. During the mid-1940s, 214 World War II veterans were lured to the area by the United States Government with promises of homesteads and irrigated farmland and guaranteed water rights. Established in 1905 as one of the reclamation's first projects, the project provides water for 1,400, that is right, 1,400 small family farms and ranch operations on approximately 200,000 acres. Municipal and industrial water comes from this project, and water for three national wildlife refuges. Together, farmers and wildlife refuges need about 350,000 acre feet of water. Now, in 1957, the two States formed the Klamath Compact, to which the Federal Government consented. The compact set the precedence for use in the following order: domestic use, irrigation use, recreation use, including use for fish and wildlife, industrial use and generation of hydroelectric power. Now producers grow 40 percent of California's fresh potatoes, 35 percent of America's horseradish and wheat and barley. Water users claim that they use less than 5 percent of the water generated in the basin. Yet they generate in excess of $250 million in economic activity every year. Now I want you to think about that number: $250 million annually of economic activity in this basin. On April 6 of this year, the Federal Government said, none of that is going to happen. We are not giving you a drop of water. In 1988, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the short-nosed and the lost river sucker fish as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. In the drought year of 1992, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended that Upper Klamath Lake be kept above a minimum elevation of 4,139 feet during summer months, although it allowed that the lake could drop to as low as 4,137 feet in 4 of 10 years. For the first time in Klamath Reclamation Project's history, irrigation deliveries were curtailed at the end of the growing season to meet minimum lake levels. That was in 1992, a year of a large drought. In 1996, the Bureau of Reclamation agreed to meet certain minimum instream flows below Iron Gate Dam to protect habitat for tribal trust resources in anadromous fishruns. In 1997, Southern Oregon and Northern California coastal Coho salmon were listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened. A 1999 biological opinion from the National Marine Fishery Service concludes Klamath Project operations would affect, but not likely jeopardize, the Coho; and then in the year 2000 a study that some consider to have used controversial experimental technology, to say the least, by Dr. Thomas Hardy, a Utah State University hydrologist, and it called for instream flows to protect the fish far higher than those set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or those agreed by the reclamation in 1996. Suits have been filed by environmental, tribal and fishing groups to enjoin the Bureau of Reclamation from operating the project without a current biological opinion for the Coho salmon. Judge Sandra Armstrong subsequently ruled the project may not be operated without adequate flows sent downstream to the salmon. Following a declaration of severe drought for the Klamath Basin in this year, 2001, a new biological opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the suckers called for a minimum elevation in Klamath Lake to be raised to 4,140 feet. That is a foot higher than the minimum elevation required during the last drought in 1992, and that was allowed to drop to as low as 4,137. So you are really looking at a 3-foot difference in lake levels all of a sudden that are required, with no tolerance for lower elevations in drought years; no tolerance for lower elevations in drought years. Then a new biological opinion based on this Hardy flow study called for increased flows below Iron Gate Dam to protect the Coho salmon habitat. On the one hand, you have a Fish and Wildlife biological opinion saying you must maintain a lake level of 4,140 feet with no exception to protect a bottom mud living sucker fish, and then you also have to have a whole bunch more water flowing down the river out of that lake for the Coho salmon. Analysis of the studies underlying these opinions showed that requirements for the two species appropriate all, all, of the water available in a normal precipitation year; all of the water available in the normal precipitation year to take care of the suckers in the lake and the Coho salmon in the river, according to these new biological opinions. Yet there is incredible discussion, debate, frustration about these two biological opinions, how they were crafted, what they contain, the conclusions that they draw; and I will get into that in some detail soon. In fact, in a study of historical flow data taken from the past 36 years, now this is important, Mr. Speaker, in the last 36 years annual flow targets were met in only 13 of those years and monthly targets were never achieved. So think about what this means for the people in this basin. Our veterans from World War I and World War II lured there to settle the lands with the promise of water forever, now have the spigots turned off. The canals are dry, as are their fields. Operations consistent with these biological opinions would rarely provide water for irrigation or, and this is important, wildlife refuges. Perhaps farming could occur 3 years out of 11; 3 years out of 11. This is a very complex water system in this basin. They reclaimed lake beds, they built canals. They built diversions. They built sumps. They have added irrigation from pumps. They have moved the water around in this basin to accommodate the wildlife, to provide for the farmers and for the fish. Yet every year we seem to get a new set of biological opinions that say we need more water in the lake, more water in the river. Sorry, if you are a farmer, you are not going to get a drop. So on April 6, 2001, the Klamath Project Water Allocation decision was announced stating that based on biological opinions and the requirements of the Endangered Species Act there would be no water available from Upper Klamath Lake to supply the farmers of the Klamath Project. Only a small area over in the Langell Valley and Bonanza would receive water from a different system in Clear Lake and Gerber Reservoirs. Last Saturday, six Members of this House of Representatives, including four members of the House Committee on Resources, participated in a field hearing in Klamath Falls. So many people in that basin wanted to turn out to observe this hearing, and this was not a town meeting but this was an official hearing of the full Committee on Resources, that we had to move the hearing from the Ragland Theater that seats 750 or so people to the Klamath County Fairgrounds where more than 2,000, some have said as high as 3,000, people turned out. For 5\1/2\ hours, the grandstands in that fairgrounds contained people concerned about the future of that basin. They sat there with us as we took testimony and heard about the problems. Somewhere here on one of these posters, I want to show what happened before the hearing started. I think this speaks to the magnitude of the problem, Mr. Speaker. What we see here is a semi-truck, a semi-truck loaded with food. In 5 days, we organized a food drive in Oregon, thanks to the Oregon Grocers Association, with most, if not all, of the grocery stores in the State participating. Eight semi-truck loads of food came down to replenish the food in the Klamath food bank. The number of people accessing that bank is up 1,400. Now, we are talking about a small rural community; 1,400 more people, I think was the number, of what they would normally have at this time of year, 1,400. Think about this sad irony, Mr. Speaker. We have truckloads of food from all over Oregon from grocery stores that often compete but today were united, bringing food to a food bank to feed farmers, farmers going to a food bank. Think how they feel and how the people that work for them feel. I thank the grocery industry in Oregon for their generosity. This will get us through the middle of August. That is all, the middle of August. Then we will be back looking for more help, and we can use it. I said that science is always at issue in debate here, and I want to get into why I believe the Endangered Species Act needs to be revised to deal with the issue of science. In this case again we are dealing with two biological opinions, one from the Fish and Wildlife Service and one from the National Marine Fisheries Service. The one from the Fish and Wildlife Service, I am told, was originally put together, the science there as part of the tribal trust obligations of the Department of Interior through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to be used as data in water adjudication issues for the Klamath tribes, a legitimate purpose. It all makes sense, but those data and the analysis then came over to the other part of the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and used there to set the lake level, not part of the adjudication now but to set the lake levels they believed, these scientists believed, necessary to improve the lives of the suckers. One of the things the Endangered Species Act does not require is that that data, those analyses, those data not be made public. I think it ought to require that, because I think each of us in this Chamber and those elsewhere should have an opportunity to review this science. I do not see what would be wrong with saying, you ought to have that opportunity and that ability and the law to specify that. The law under the Endangered Species Act does not require that that science be independently reviewed, peer reviewed. It does not require that. In this case, the Fish and Wildlife Service, to their credit, went to one of the great establishments in Oregon, educational institutions, Oregon State University, and asked for a review of their pre-decisional draft professional scientific review. They went to these outside scientists; said, you take a look at this and tell us what you think. I want to read what the scientists at Oregon State University said in response to the biology that had been put together to make this decision. Now, again, this is the pre-decisional draft. This is not what they ended up with, but I just want to say what we started with. Here is what they wrote. This review of the BO, the biological opinion, will address both the key scientific issues related to the opinion and editorial problems with the document. The editorial problems are of such magnitude that they severely influence this review. The misspelled words, incomplete sentences, apparent word omissions, missing or incomplete citations, repetitious statements, vagueness, illogical conclusions, inconsistent and contradictory statements, often back-to-back, factual inaccuracies, lack of rigor, rampant speculation, format content and organizational structure make it very difficult to evaluate this biological opinion. We urge in the strongest possible way that the Service revisit every single sentence for importance, applicability, grammar, spelling, content and internal consistency with other parts of the document. The document is excessively long. The problems are not, quote-unquote, window dressing. Rather, they obscure the data and make it very difficult to find validity in the claims. This document has the potential to have a severe negative impact on the Service's public credibility. Now, as I said, in this case the biologists went for outside consultation, peer review, and they got it. They got it. Now, it is important to understand this document was dated 6 March, 2001. The decision that set the new lake level came down 6 April, 2001, a month later. Now, to their credit, the folks at Oregon State reviewed the final decision of the Biological Opinion and said it is reasonable. They cleaned it up, they fixed it, and you could come to the conclusions they came to based on the data that is there. Now, I have also seen an e-mail from one of the scientists that did this review who said he also thinks it errs on the side of the fish, and that you could reach a different conclusion. So the science is still being debated out there. But the one thing that is not debated out there is that there is no water for the farmers. Now, take a look at this. Normally this would be a green field this time of year. Normally this would be a green field. This is a wheel line. You can see the wheel is mired down here in the dust of what should be a green field. The winds are kicking up the dust. And I realize it may not be the highest definition picture here, but suffice it to say, in many areas, this is what we are beginning to see happen. Farms that would be producing wheat or horseradish or alfalfa or other pasture or other grains, look like this. Some farmers tried to do their best to put a cover crop on so that it would not blow away. Most of them have succeeded in that. But as the summer sun bakes on this land and the winds kick up, we are seeing more and more of this problem. They have no water. Now, I say the science is being questioned. In our Committee on Resources hearing on Saturday, David A. Vogel testified, and he is a biologist with all the kind of background you would want, a Master of Science Degree in natural resources and fisheries from the University of Michigan, Bachelor of Science in biology from Bowling Green State University, worked in the Fishery Research and Fishery Resources Division of the Fish and Wildlife Service for 14 years, in the National Marine Fishery Service for a year, received numerous superior and outstanding achievement awards and commendations, on and on and on, has done a lot of research on the Klamath Basin. Let me tell you what he said about what has happened here. I am quoting from his testimony before our committee. ``In my entire professional career, I have never been involved in a decision-making process that was as closed, segregated and poor as we now have in the Klamath Basin. The constructive science-based processes I have been involved in elsewhere have involved an honest and open dialogue among people having scientific expertise. Hypotheses are developed and rigorously developed against empirical evidence.'' That is pretty harsh stuff. ``None of those elements of good science characterize the decision making process for the Klamath project.'' Now, I would say as a disclaimer, the Klamath water users have hired his firm to evaluate this science. But if this was the fate of your farm, would you not be hiring well-qualified scientists to question the data that a month before it is put into use is ripped apart in a stern indictment. Now, again, they cleaned it up, but I got to tell you when no water is flowing and the only thing that is coming your way is a foreclosure notice, you ought to look at the science and hire quality people to do that. I believe they have done that here. Some other things I want to point out, because I think it is important. Again from Mr. Vogel, who has credentials in this area: ``It is now very evident that the Upper Klamath Lake sucker populations have experienced substantial recruitment in recent years, and also exhibit recruitment every year. Only 3 years after the sucker listing, it also became apparent that the assumptions concerning the status of short-nosed suckers and Lost River suckers in the Lost River- Clear Lake watershed were in error. Surveys performed just after the sucker listing found substantial populations of suckers in Clear Lake reported as common, exhibiting a biologically desirable diverse age distribution. Within California, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife surveys considered populations of both species as relatively abundant, particularly short-nosed, and exist in mixed-age populations, indicating successful reproduction. Recent population estimates for suckers in the Lost River-Clear Lake watershed indicated their populations are substantial and that hybridization is no longer considered as rampant, as portrayed in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study in 1988. Tens of thousands of short-nosed suckers exhibiting good recruitment are now known to exist in Gerber Reservoir. ``In 1994, the Clear Lake populations of Lost River suckers and the short-nosed suckers were estimated at 22,000 and 70,000 respectively, with both populations increasing in recent years exhibiting good recruitment and a diverse age distribution. Unlike the information provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the 1988 ESA listing, it is now obvious that the species' habitats were sufficiently good to provide suitable conditions for these populations. Additionally, the geographic range in which the suckers are found in the watershed is now known to be much larger than believed at the time of the listing.'' He goes on to say, ``I believe the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's recent biological opinion on the operations of the Klamath project has artificially created a regulatory crisis that did not have to occur.'' That did not have to occur. He goes on, and I think this is very important, ``This circumstance was caused by the Fish and Wildlife Service focus on Upper Klamath Lake elevation and is a major step in the wrong direction for practical natural resource management. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rationale for imposing high reservoir levels ranges from keeping the levels high early in the season to allow suckers spawning access to one small lakeshore spring, to keeping the lake high for presumed water quality improvements. This measure of artificially maintaining higher than historical lake elevations is likely to be detrimental, not beneficial, for sucker populations. These data do not show a relationship between lake elevations and sucker populations.'' Listen to that again. The data do not show a relationship between lake levels and sucker populations, ``and to maintain higher than normal lake elevations can actually promote fish kills in water bodies such as Klamath Lake.'' So which scientist do you believe? Which scientist do you believe? The problem is when it comes to the Endangered Species Act, the only ones that are believed are the ones that issued this biological opinion that resulted in no water for the farmers. Mr. Vogel goes on to write, ``During the mid-1990s, I predicted that fish kills would occur if Upper Klamath Lake elevations were maintained at higher than historical levels. Subsequently, those fish kills did occur. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recent biological opinion dismissed or ignored the biological lessons from fish kills that occurred in 1971, 1986, 1995, 1996 and 1997, and instead selectively reported only information to support the agency's concept of higher lake levels. All the empirical evidence and material demonstrate that huge fish kills have occurred when Upper Klamath Lake was near average or above average elevations, but not at low elevations. This is not an opinion, but a fact, extensively documented in the administrative record and subsequently ignored by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.'' So that is Mr. Vogel's comments. Now I would like to share with my colleagues comments from another very learned individual, Mr. Harry Carlson, Superintendent, Farm Adviser, on the letterhead of the University of California. I will find his credentials here, because they are very solid. He says, three degrees from the University of California at Davis, BS in wildlife and fisheries biology, MS in agronomy, and a PhD in ecology. Superintendent at the University of California Intermountain Research and Extension Center in Tulelake, California. He is also the university farm adviser for field and vegetable crops in Modoc and Siskiyou Counties. So in these roles he collaborates with many university researchers on issues of importance regarding agriculture in the Klamath Basin. Obviously a gentleman with incredible credentials and very capable of commenting on this science. He says, ``Serious gaps and errors in logic in the 2001 NMFS Biological Opinion on Coho salmon severely damage the credibility of the report in demanding huge increases in flows for the protection of the species. The legal basis for issuing this opinion lies solely on the threatened status of Coho salmon in the greater southern Oregon- northern California region. Yet, the NMFS Biological Opinion is almost solely based upon Chinook salmon, not on threatened Coho species. Further, there is almost no discussion on the explicit effects of Klamath project operation on Coho populations in this area. Most of the discussion is centered on Chinook populations and life stages, while acknowledging that Coho life histories and the use of the river resource are very different from Chinook. This leads to serious errors in logic and invalid conclusions.'' He goes on to say, ``The report acknowledges that very little is known about the status of Coho in the Klamath River, but at the same time, ignores the detailed hatchery return data that are available. Full analysis of these data probably would show that there is very poor correlation between Iron Gate flow regimens, Coho survival and spawning returns.'' He writes, ``My overall conclusions are these: The salmon Biological Opinion never comes close to making a case that proposed project operations and resultant flows in any way jeopardize the continued existence of Coho in the Klamath River. Science and logic dictate that the increased flow requirements demanded in the Biological Opinion will most likely have little impact on the continued existence of Coho salmon in southern Oregon and northern California. Similarly, the high lake levels demanded in the sucker fish Biological Opinion are not supported by logic or available data. Indeed, high lake levels may be part of the problem. An independent, unbiased review of the Biological Opinions would lead to the almost inescapable conclusion that the maintenance of high Klamath Lake levels and the increased demand for flows in the river will have little or no impact on the recovery of the threatened and endangered fish.'' Again, the University of California, Harry L. Carlson, Superintendent, Farm Adviser, PhD ecology, BS in wildlife and fisheries biology. Learned individuals who have also looked at these data and come up with much different conclusions. Yet, again, the only conclusion these folks have who want to farm in this basin and were promised water is that there is nothing in the A Canal and nothing in their fields. I want to tell their story now. You heard about the conflict over the biology and the science. Before I get to their story, I think it is important to again say, does this not speak volumes about the need for independent, blind, peer review of the data? Why should we not change the Endangered Species Act to require that? Should we not know that at the foundation of a decision that affects 1,400 farm families, ruins a $200 million economy, and threatens the survivability of bald eagles in the refuge that holds the most of them in the winter of anywhere in the lower 48 and is a major stopping point on the Pacific flyway, where 70 percent of the food is raised on farms like this. Where are those birds going to eat? They can eat dirt, and the bald eagles are going to suffer. The environmental organizations are threatening to sue over all of these decisions, because there is not water adequate enough for the refuge. Let me share some of the stories of some of the people I represent in the Klamath Basin. Reading from boxes of testimony, you probably cannot see them, colleagues, but two full boxes of testimony over here that we picked up at the hearing from individuals who wanted their thoughts heard, so we have gone through that. I want to share some, because they are heart-wrenching and they speak to the problem. This is entitled ``Proud to be an American.'' ``When my daughter, who was raised here in the Basin, left to go to college, eager to live in a bigger city, I told her one day she would be back. I was right. She did come back, and married a wonderful, hard-working, caring and intelligent man. He happened to be a farmer. I felt blessed to be able to live near them. Soon they gave our family two more precious people to love, my grandchildren. Life seemed good. I was and am a proud grandparent, and I was a proud American. And I don't feel that now. ``My daughter spent her birthday this January in the hospital receiving the news her 5-year-old son has Type I diabetes. Our families were shocked and scared. As you can imagine, it has changed all of our lives forever. Then this. No water for farmers, no farming, no money, no health insurance for their son. I wake every night unable to sleep, tossing and turning with constant thoughts of all this mess. Driving to and from Merrill to Klamath Falls, I look at the fields, the sheep, the cattle, the horses, and all the types of birds soaring in the sky. It is hard to imagine that this will all be gone. ``The other grandparents and farmers are too and were in the process of retiring. Imagine trying to start a new career at the age you are supposed to be thinking of retirement. This is just one family. Some may be a little better off, some a little worse, only time will tell. I will never feel the same about our country or our flag that I was always so proud of. The men who fought for what it was supposed to represent have my pride, but it ends there. I would never have believed America would turn its back on its own. What a joke. ``My soon-to-be six-year-old-grandson can go by any field around here and he can tell you who it belongs to, what they are growing and knows all the equipment names and how they are used. No one can ever tell me that the love of farming was not born in this young boy. ``This is not about a drought, it is about destroying a way of life, taking away freedom, crushing hopes and dreams and changing forever the lives of generations to come. When this all started, I decided to make a scrapbook for my grandson, thinking it would be something he would be proud of: the farmers fighting for their rights and winning. I never dreamed I would be putting together a book that would show him how he lost his heritage as a fifth generation farmer. My heart breaks for my daughter and her family and all the other farmers facing the demise of their honorable profession. Proud to be an American? Not anymore.'' Signed, Susan Morin. Jeffrey Boyd writes, ``This water crisis has the potential to destroy everything my grandfather, my father, and my family have worked to build. My grandfather is 92 years old and is confined to a bed in a rest home in Klamath Falls, Oregon. He may not be able to move, but he is aware of what is going on and he cannot believe what is happening to the Klamath project. My father will be 60 years old this year and this will be the first time in his 40-plus years of farming that no water will be delivered to the Klamath project, to the Tulelake irrigation district. His land values have fallen and he is worried that the bank will foreclose. ``As for myself, my family and I are determined to stay and fight for what we know is right. However, I am not able to get financing because of no water; and other than a minor amount of well water, I am not able to irrigate my crops. My father, out of the goodness of his heart, can employ me until October, and then my job is gone. To top all of that off, the potato packing shed that my wife works for will probably have to lay off people because the growers that run potatoes through the shed have no water and can raise no potatoes. I hope this sounds bad, because it is.'' It is bad. It is tragic, and it does not have to happen. For Mary Lou Clark, she writes, ``As an educator, I am alarmed that the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes and farm production will devastate our schools as well as all public services in the Klamath Basin. All sectors of our community are beginning to feel the devastation as farmers go bankrupt. Laborers go hungry and businesses supporting farmers are forced to close their doors. I urge you to help us right this terrible wrong. We are more than willing to participate in solutions, but the people of the Klamath Basin should not have to bear the brunt of the consequences of the Endangered Species Act and water shortages alone. Common sense has to prevail.'' This one from Richard and Nicola Biehn. ``It is crucial that the economic hardships of the people are considered. For us, the slowdown of the asphalt construction, my husband has lost days of work, as paved streets and driveways are not priorities when people are worried about mortgages and grocery bills. The construction trade is grinding to a halt. Thus, there will be less work in the future for local small companies.'' And from Deep Creek Ranch in Merrill, Oregon, Don and Connie and Julie Dean write, ``At 60 years of age and a lifetime effort expended maintaining a livestock and farming heritage established by my parents, how do I attempt to explain the heartache and the stress factor created by the complete loss of a year's production? Granted, we are not a large operation, but it provides for my mother, my wife, and myself and, I thought, future for my daughter, my sister-in-law and their children who are the next generation taking over this operation. What reassurance can there be for the younger generation of a country that will blind side its citizens with such economic devastation? The initial loss of $150,000 in sales for 2001 together with approximately $125,000 of capital expenses for establishing an irrigation well and replanting the alfalfa acreage destroyed by the man-made drought erodes the financial stability of this family farm. The passage of time used to be a comforting asset in the growing of crops, but under the present situation, time has become a mortal enemy, slowly moving many families in the Basin closer to total financial collapse. As we approach fall, the thoughts of thousands of farm families and town businesses finding themselves with their backs against the wall could make for a desperate group to deal with. It is with utmost sincerity that I request this honorable committee to take urgent action and the $221 million aid package being considered to rectify the taking of our contractual irrigation water.'' Indeed, this administration stepped forward immediately with a $20 million package in the supplemental appropriations that we approved yesterday in this House Chamber. Twenty million of a $250 million problem. I thank them for the initial help. Obviously, much more needs to happen. Unfortunately, the others in the other body today, they worked on language to remove that $20 million. How heartless. How senseless. How wrongheaded. Hopefully, my colleagues will come to their senses and restore it, because if we cannot get $20 million, what are we really telling these people? We do not care at all? It is wrong. It has to change. Mr. Speaker, the other sad irony in all of this, these people who have not had the water turned on at canal, who fought for our country in World War I and World War II and settled this land at the asking of the government, who are now having to go to food banks and beg with their banks not to foreclose on them and explain to their kids and workers who have worked the fields for them for 30 years that the future is bleak. They are also getting bills from the Federal Government to pay for the operations and management of a project that delivers no water to them; delivers no water. They get a bill for it. We are going to try and change that too. I am going to call on the Department of Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation to take pity and mercy on these people and at least waive those fees for this year. If they are not going to get water, why should they have to pay when they have had another promise broken to them. Here is another letter I received, and it is amazing how many people also send photos of themselves and when they settled here and what it was like and what it has become for them. ``The day of April 6, 2001 was as infamous to the people in this Valley of Tulelake as December 7, Pearl Harbor Day, was to the citizens of the United States.'' This from retired staff sergeant Fred Robison, I believe, U.S. Air Force, 1942 to 1946. He sent a picture here, my colleagues probably, I am sure, cannot see, but I will read the caption because it was on the front cover of Reclamation Era Magazine, February 1947. ``Fortune smiled on Fred and Velma Robison because we wanted our readers to see that others shared their joy.'' Here is the full picture from which the cover was made. Fred had to wait until number 61 was drawn before hearing the good news. You can tell by those big grins that it was well worth it. He was one of the Tulelake homestead winners, 1947. No water today. He fought for his country. They turn off the spigot. A letter to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), chairman of the Committee on Resources from Darla Parks, a 40th generation farm family teacher and mother. She said the day they cut off the water was one of the worst days of her life. It says, ``Instead, I feel that I was naive and betrayed by a government that I knew was imperfect, but a government that I trusted not to breach contracts, a government that could use common sense and look at the real facts and would surely put entire communities before fish and find an equitable solution where both fish and farmers could survive.'' That is the argument I am trying to make tonight, is both can survive. They have, they can. These decisions are based on science that is in dispute, by certified, smart people. I read their credentials. They have looked at the same science and said, I get a different conclusion. But under the Endangered Species Act, there is only one conclusion that prevails, and that is the one that comes from the agency, and that is not right. I have a lot of other letters here. I want to share a few comments and then I will yield my time back to the Chair. A couple of these I just feel like I have to share. Bob and Lynn Baley, and Kylee and Allie and Bradlyn. ``I, Bob Baley and my wife Lynn are both third generation farmers in the Tulelake area. We have both worked to live in this community all of our lives. When we planned our family of three wonderful girls, it was our dream and intentions to raise them in the same town, attending the same schools, church, 4-H and FFA programs that we have had the experience and pleasure enjoying in this drug-free, nonviolent, rural community. Grandfather Baley raised his first commercial table stock potato crop in 1929 on this family farm. The Baleys have provided potatoes every year from then until this devastating water cutoff year of 2001. Along with commercial potatoes, this family farm has worked very hard to build itself into a very diversified family farming operation of 3,000 acres consisting of contracted Frito Lay potatoes for the past 32 years, contracted dehydrated onions for the past 41 years, contracted peppermint for oil, along with alfalfa for hay, barleys, wheat and peas, all of which are water-dependent crops. One year without fulfilling our contracts, we have a very high chance of never achieving them again, and that will financially destroy this operation.'' So I say to my colleagues, as we pick up a bag of Frito Lay potato chips, think about the Baleys, the fact that for years they have had contracts with companies like Frito Lay, to provide for the potatoes that go into those bags. I have to laugh, some people think you get milk from a carton and potato chips from a bag and you forget they are grown by men and women who take the risks, who work long days and in some cases long nights, who fight against Mother Nature's freezing temperatures and yes, droughts, and now our government who says they cannot have water. And then they go up against some radical environmentalists. We had one that testified, who actually I have worked with and worked out some solutions with, but I was really disturbed by his comments to the committee because he said ``Locally, potatoes are being raised more for the government subsidies than the market.'' Totally erroneous. Factually in error. Sure, there are some potato growers here that probably have crop insurance, just like you and I have auto insurance, to protect us against the unexpected. It is a prudent business practice. But growing for subsidies? The Baleys do not grow for subsidies, they grow for Frito Lay. There are no subsidies for these crops. This person also said, first it is marginal farmland. You put water on this land like they have since 1905 and it produces some of the best yields in America. I do not know many crops in the garden at my house if I fail to water it, if I do not go home this weekend and the water system does not work, they are not going to look very good on a summer weekend. Without water, we do not grow things in this country. I grew up on a cherry orchard. We did not water often, but the trees would not have survived if we did not water at all. That is what we have happening. We are getting dust bowl where we used to have a Basin that was so very productive and farmers who were successful. Mr. Speaker, I want to close with just two other comments. This is from one of the outstanding commissioners, county commissioners; and we have some really great county commissioners in these counties. I am most familiar, of course, with the Klamath County commissioners, Steve West, John Elliott, and Al Switzer, who have worked day and night with me on trying to do everything we can to get help. But I think Commissioner West who was asked to testify said it well. He said, ``In passing the Endangered Species Act legislation, the people's elected Federal representatives said that these species were important enough to the people of the United States to pass a powerful law. The Endangered Species Act is the Federal law for all of the people of the United States. Therefore, all of the people of the United States should have to shoulder the cost of implementing this law, not just those that make the upper Klamath Basin their home. The people of Klamath County and the upper Klamath Basin cannot be asked to pay the entire costs of the Endangered Species Act for the entire Klamath River watershed. All of the problems of water quality, quantity and endangered species in the Klamath River system cannot be solved on the backs of the upper Klamath irrigation project, the people of Klamath county and the people of the upper Klamath Basin alone.'' These people want to work together with environmentalists, they want to respect the tribal rights of the Yuroks and the Klamath and others who have legitimate claims here that we need to respect and not trample their rights, but we do not need to trample the rights of the other people in this Basin. So in closing, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for his willingness to allow us to have this full Committee on Resources hearing in my district. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) who has been tireless at my side and I at his as we work to find solutions. Sue Ellen Waldbridge over at the Department of Interior for agreeing to come out and testify but, moreover, for spending 82 hours on the ground out there trying to learn about every angle of this problem and look and work with us for solutions. I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), and especially the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), who joined me on the dais, and who participated for 5\1/2\ hours on Father's Day weekend to take testimony and hear about the problem. He pledged to work with me as we tried to find solutions so we do not have a dust bowl, so we do not have farmers going to food banks, so we have an Endangered Species Act that works for the species that does not pit one against the other, bald eagles against suckerfish, but one which works for all. This reform is definitely needed.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the chairman of the full committee for his assistance and that of the administration for providing upwards of $20 million in disaster relief in this supplemental for the people, the ranchers of Klamath Falls, Oregon, in the Klamath Basin, that includes also over into California. This aid is extraordinarily important. Saturday, the House Committee on Resources held a hearing in Klamath Falls that had to be moved to the fairgrounds because more than 2,000 people affected by this cutoff of the water turned out to hear what the Federal Government was doing. Mr. Chairman, as we have discussed, I greatly appreciate all the efforts of the chairman and that of his staff to expedite the delivery of those funds in the form of grants to the farmers that are so affected. As we have talked, however, this is literally a drop in the bucket in terms of the disaster magnitude there. Upwards of $200 million is what they estimate will be the problem. I wondered, Mr. Chairman, if it might be possible, recognizing this will not be the only vehicle going through this session of Congress, but if possible we could work to increase that disaster aid to these people whose fields are drying out and they are getting foreclosure notices today.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his consideration. I appreciate, again, the work of his staff and himself and the other committee members for recognizing the extraordinary loss that is occurring here and the dramatic situation we are engaged in.

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

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, President Chen Shui-bian of the Republic of China will be completing his first year of service as Taiwan's head of state this May 20, and I would like to congratulate him and comment on a few of Taiwan's achievements. First, the Republic of China on Taiwan is a major trading partner of the United States and has maintained friendly ties and relations with us for the last ninety years. Second, over recent decades, Taiwan has become a successful model of political reform. Fifty years ago, Taiwan was a closed and authoritarian society with neither freedom of speech nor freedom of assembly. Taiwan did not have elections. Today, Taiwan has become a true democracy. It is the home to more than 90 political parties and virtually every political office in Taiwan is hotly contested through free and fair elections. Third, Taiwan subscribes to the private enterprise system. Taiwan's economy is vibrant and it offers its people one of the highest standards of living in Asia, including universal education and free medical care of people of all ages in Taiwan. Fourth, in terms of its trading relations with us, Taiwan represents our seventh largest export market, thus providing many jobs for our manufacturers. Fifth, in addition to trade relations, more than 30,000 Taiwan students are studying at U.S. colleges and universities. Sixth, the U.S. is the number one destination for most of Taiwan's travelers. Seventh, and last but not least, Taiwan and the U.S. share many values in common such as attachment to human rights, freedom and democracy. Congratulations to Taiwan. I would also like to extend my sincerest welcome to President Chen during his visit to America. He will be stopping in New York on his way to Central America later this month. His stay in New York will be brief, but I hope he enjoys his stay and I wish him success during his official visit in Central America.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to update my colleagues in the House on the crisis affecting the people of the Klamath Basin in Oregon and California. Yesterday I attended what was called a ``bucket brigade.'' We had buckets like these representing each of the 50 States where we took water out of the lake and symbolically handed it down a chain of people 1.2 miles long to dump it in the A-Canal that this year will have no water in it. These are the people that were at the rally. In all my years in public office, here and in Oregon, I have never seen close to 16,000 people turn out to protest a government action, but that occurred in Klamath Falls yesterday; peaceful, civil disobedience, making the case for reforming the Endangered Species Act. Let me tell you what people are saying. Let me share with you some of the letters and comments. This from a Vietnam veteran who earned a medal for heroism, who flies in the Klamath Basin in a crop duster: ``When the season starts up, we have just about used all our savings from the previous season. Taxes take a huge chunk out of my check. Since I have no retirement plan from work, I have to put what little I can into that. We have house payments due, food to put on the table, heating bills. I have no money left. I am going to have to start drawing from our IRA; and with penalties and interest, that is a poor option, but all I have. We are going to lose our house. We can't sell it, because everyone here is in the same boat. It is worth nothing. Help us.'' And this from a woman from Malin: ``The decision of no water for irrigation comes as a major disaster to our small communities of Malin and Merrill, Tooley Lake. The government can offer low interest loans, but who will be able to ever pay them back. Our spirit is broken. How can the government ever be trusted again? Contracts for water in the Klamath project, where, by the way, there are 1,000 farmers that will not get water this year for the first time since this project was created nearly 100 years ago, contracts for this water have been broken and our water stolen. Why would we build more storage, to have it taken away by another group? There are school football fields and city parks that will get no water this summer.'' Mr. Speaker, there have already been traffic accidents on the major highway because this area is turning into a dust bowl, and it will this summer, because the government has said it needs all the water for the suckers in Klamath Lake and for the salmon in Klamath River. So the ``reasonable'' and ``prudent'' decision of the government, and I put those two words in quotes, is to say the ranchers and the farmers can have no water; the schools that rely on the water for their fields and the cities for their parks will have no water; the people will have no income; the people will have no livelihood. They have no way to survive if they have no water to put on their crops, because nothing will be raised, nothing will be grown, nothing will be harvested, because the Endangered Species Act as written today makes no provision for people, for communities like Klamath Falls or Malin or Merrill or Tooley Lake. No, these people are left off the plate. They have no seat at the table of public policy. They are being wiped out by this decision. It is wrong. The time has come to change and amend the Endangered Species Act so that we do not make these unilateral decisions that wipe people out. Mr. Speaker, 16,000 people in the Klamath Basin turned out yesterday to try to get the attention of the country, to get the attention of this Congress that change is needed. We can work together to have a cleaner environment, but we do not have to wipe agriculture off the map to do it. We can work together to provide for habitat for fish, but we do not have to create a dust bowl to do it. We do not have to rely on science that is now being questioned by those who have finally had an opportunity to look at it who say, maybe that science is not right. But let me tell my colleagues, on April 6, the decision was made: the headgates will be closed and they will be closed all year. The water will not flow. It is too late to plant. The contracts will be lost. Farmers have nothing to put in the ground, and if they did, no water to make it grow. So, we will approach this Congress for disaster relief. It is an option we wish we did not have to take; but we will, because we have no other option for this year. We will approach this Congress and vigorously fight for changes in the Endangered Species Act. This can happen to you, because it has happened to these people who fight for our country and provided for our people and farmed the land.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of an economic disaster in the Klamath Basin of Oregon that demands the attention of Congress and this country. The good people of this Basin were lured there by a promise made by the Federal Government nearly a century ago: ``Come settle the West, and we will provide you with land and water; produce food for our Nation, secure our western expansion, and we will reward you.'' Moreover, the government gave first priority to the men and women who fought for our Nation's freedom in World War I and World War II. Yes, our veterans who risked life and limb were rewarded, indeed enticed, to help the government reclaim the land and feed the country. In 1905, the newly created Bureau of Reclamation started construction of the Klamath Reclamation Project on the land surrounding Upper and Lower Klamath Lakes in Oregon. It is on the Oregon-California border. The project, using dams, canals and ditches, brought water to the arid land. Three years later, President Theodore Roosevelt designated our country's first national wildlife refuge in the Klamath Basin. Roosevelt understood and supported the need for irrigated agriculture and the interrelationship the project had with the refuge. For years, farming and wildlife coexisted beneficially. Water from the project fed into the refuge, and farmers grew crops that in part were available for the birds. A resurgence of bald eagles occurred. Today, of all this is threatened; the quality of the refuge, the livelihood of the farmers. Why? Because over time the government has passed new laws that reallocate the water in more ways than there is water. And on April 6, the Bureau of Reclamation announced for the first time in this country's history, there would be no water for farmers. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The headgates would remain closed. The canals would remain dry. The farmers were on their own. Suckers, that is right, sucker fish, in Upper Klamath Lake now had to be saved at all costs. Higher lake levels were set. Meanwhile, other biologists said more water must flow down the Klamath River to help threatened salmon runs. More water in the lake. More water in the river. But no water for farmers. The Endangered Species Act is supposed to have a reasonable and prudent test, so I ask you, is it reasonable and prudent to bankrupt nearly 2,000 farm families? Is it reasonable and prudent to bring economic disaster to an entire basin? Is it a reasonable and prudent operations plan for the project to not operate the project? Monday, a Federal Court basically said yes. Well, I could not disagree more, and these new requirements are anything but reasonable and prudent for the farming families and the communities in the Klamath Basin. So today we are facing a disaster, and today we must decide as a Nation if we are going to pass laws for the ``benefit'' of the whole country; then, if those laws bring about the demise of a few, the whole Nation needs to compensate the few for their loss. So I am proceeding with aggressive efforts to get disaster relief to the farmers and others in the Basin who are living this hardship every day. I am also working closely with the Bush administration to step up efforts to add to the water storage in the Basin, so that fish and farmers will have adequate supplies in the years ahead. If the government is going to allocate more water than it has, then it darn well better figure out how to keep its commitment by adding to the storage. I commend the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) for appointing a bipartisan task force to look into the Endangered Species Act and how it is affecting people and communities. Today I have asked him to use the situation in the Klamath Basin specifically as a perfect example of the problem we face. Too often in the past, the Federal Government has set the standards and then gotten in the way of our ability to achieve them. Today, I met with Federal officials and urged them to let Oregonians have more say in how we meet Federal laws. What we need most right now is for the Federal Government to work with us, not against us; to stand up for balance, not disaster. This administration has tried in vain to find a way to provide water to farmers this year, but they were boxed in by the unworkable requirements of the Endangered Species Act. They have inherited a mess, but at least they are working with us to bring a change. From the dust bowl and disaster that will result this summer perhaps will rise the change that is so needed and so overdue. We should never have ended up in this place. Perhaps the recognition will come that people and communities must be part of any successful effort to improve our environment and not simply double-crossed and run off the land.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, due to my presence at a funeral in Oregon on Tuesday, April 3, I was not able to participate in any roll call votes that took place on that day. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes #76, #77 and #78.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues some information about a new approach being explored to transition environmental compliance from what is widely perceived as an adversarial process to a cooperative, results-oriented effort between companies and state regulators. So far, fourteen states have formed a Multi-State Working Group (MSWG), whose focus is to develop regulatory incentives that get companies to take a more proactive, systematic approach in managing their environmental impacts. Oregon was one of the first states to implement an incentive-based environmental regulation program, which is uniquely tied to its permitting process. Through its Green Permits Program, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality will be awarding one of its first incentive based permits to a Louisiana Pacific (LP) building products plant in Hines, Oregon. A key component of the Green Permits program is the adoption of an environmental management system that has enabled LP's facility in Hines to go the extra mile in exceeding the operating standards set by the state of Oregon. The Hines' plant has kept their air emissions to only 10 percent of the total annual levels allowed by its Oregon Department of Environmental Quality air permit and proactively works with a Community Advisory Council in addressing community concerns. In addition, more than $90,000 is generated each year through the plant's planer shavings recycling effort. These improvements have led to better cooperation with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Green Permits Program has several benefits including addressing a wider range of potential environmental impacts on a regular basis and increasing communication and involvement between environmental agencies, communities and companies. Also, companies can improve credibility with stakeholders in addition to potential cost saving and operational improvements.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not able to be present for the rollcall vote on H.R. 4577, the FY 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill on December 15, 2000. Unfortunately inclement weather prevented me from returning to Washington, DC. Had I been present for this vote, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 5 p.m. on Monday next.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues my understanding of the land exchanges regarding the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 (H.R. 4828) that was debated on the House Floor on October 4, 2000. I would like the record to indicate that the cash payments to the ranchers were designed to compensate the payees for severance damages to their remaining property. I want it to be clear that these payments are being made for economic losses that the ranchers are suffering from their dislocation as a result of the creation of this Wilderness. H.R. 4828 was supported by the entire Oregon congressional delegation and is the product of a long and hard-fought battle to ensure that there was an Oregon solution to an Oregon issue.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinary tonight to listen to this, because there are 73 Democrats missing. The Democrat leader is missing. It is a little hard to negotiate when they are not in town. Our leadership is here and we are here. But more importantly for the American people to understand, for 30 years around this place, whenever they wanted to spend more money than they had, the Democrats would just take the money out of the Social Security fund and leave an IOU behind. We changed that in this Congress. We changed that. We created the lockbox that safeguards Social Security and Medicare. We also put money into paying down debt. There has been $350 billion paid down in the last 3 years. We hope to pay down another $240 billion in this budget alone. That is why we are standing here ready to fight, because we want to pay down debt, not just grow the government. We want to do meaningful tax relief, not just add to the burden of working Americans. Tomorrow, we are going to do something extraordinary for the State of Florida and for the United States, and that is approve the Everglades legislation.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, it saddens me that my speeches on the floor condemning the harsh treatment of Edmond Pope have become all too regular. Mr. Pope, an American businessman being held in Russia on charges of espionage, has been in prison now for 213 days. I learned yesterday that during his trial, apparently Mr. Pope's jailers discovered he was doubled over in pain unable to continue the trial. Other reports suggest he collapsed after returning to his prison cell. What do they expect, Mr. Speaker? Six months into his imprisonment, he has not been seen by anyone but the prison doctor despite his frail health and history of cancer. If this prison doctor is as qualified to practice medicine as Ed's captors are to deliver justice, we have reason to fear for his health. Ed Pope has been held in unspeakable conditions in a Russian prison courtesy of a government that simply cannot let go of its legacy of human rights abuses. While we do not yet know the nature of his illness, he is obviously very sick. I am absolutely outraged over the barbaric treatment Ed Pope continues to receive. He must be released immediately, Mr. Speaker. At a minimum he deserves the basic human right of being able to get appropriate medical care and an English-speaking doctor to review the results.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pride to extend this official welcome to one of our nation's newest citizens, Hannah JoAnn LanZhen Simons of Hood River, Oregon. Hannah was born November 8, 1996 in Magongtan, Zhejian Province in the Peoples Republic of China. Her first months were spent in the Lanxi Social Welfare Institute, an orphanage. In the summer of 1997, she was adopted at Hangzhou, Zhejian Province, PRC by her mother, Marta Simons, and brought to the United States to live. On September 26 of this year, she became a citizen of the United States. It's a wonderful thing that China allows for these adoptions which have lifted little babies out of orphanages and placed them into arms of loving families here in America. Mr. Speaker, it's also important to acknowledge the continued efforts of this Congress to expand the opportunity and affordability for adoption. Together, with families like Hannah's, we're making life better for children from around the world.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Russian government an irony that I believe perfectly illustrates why Edmond Pope, an American businessman, held captive for 211 days, should be released. Since his arrest in April on charges of espionage, Ed Pope has been held in a Russian prison thousands of miles away from his family. He has been denied regular contact with his loved ones, including his ailing parents whose home is in the district I represent. He has been held in utterly uncivilized conditions, and, most distressing of all, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pope has been denied access to the specialized medical treatment that is needed to detect a recurrence of the rare form of bone cancer that he once battled. Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, while Ed Pope was sitting in his bare prison cell in Moscow, this House passed a bill granting U.S. residency to a Russian citizen named Marina Khalina and her son, Alec Miftakhov. Marina and Alec live in Portland, Oregon, a mere 250 miles from the parents of a man who is being unjustly held in their native country. Mr. Speaker, 250 miles from Roy Pope, who has terminal cancer, a condition that is made even more unbearable by the knowledge that he may not live to see his son, Ed, returned home. My comments should not be taken as any criticism about the Russians who have become our latest citizens in Portland. They are not intended that way at all. You see, Marina came to this country in search of medical treatment for her son. The assistance she has received from Oregonians in retaining that treatment for Alec is one of the most transparently generous acts of humanity I have ever witnessed, and it is incredibly important that it be carried out. Diagnosed with cerebral palsy at age 6 months, Alec's leg muscles and tendons were so contracted that he could not walk. Without the social services or rights that the disabled are afforded in this country, Alec could not go to school in Russia. His desperate mother could not even obtain a wheelchair for her son and carried him in her arms for 7 years. Thirteen years ago, she met a visiting physician from Salem, Oregon who contacted Shriners Hospitals for Children in Portland. In October of 1989, Marina and her son entered the United States as visitors for the first of 6 operations that Alec would undergo. As he underwent more surgery and rehabilitation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service in Portland granted extensions, allowing Marina and her son to remain in the U.S. Forcing Alec to return to Russia where Ed Pope spends his days peering through steel bars would have halted medical progress and consigned him to a life utterly devoid of hope. Thanks to the outpouring of assistance he received in this country, Alec has been spared that terrible fate. But while Alec receives medical attention in the United States courtesy of the goodwill of the American people and those of my State, the Russian government systematically refuses to grant Ed Pope access to the medical care that could save his life. Since the bill granting Marina and Alec residency status was introduced, she has worked in Gresham, Oregon, where she coordinates care for elderly and disabled clients. Alec has earned his high school equivalency degree and hopes to study Web design. Needless to say, the future looks considerably brighter for them in this country thanks to the compassion we have shown in this Congress and that shown by the people of Oregon. Following passage of the bill granting her a new life in this country, Marina said, ``For us, this is freedom.'' And indeed it is, Mr. Speaker. It is freedom that is being denied to Ed Pope as he sits before a Russian judge awaiting a verdict that could lock him away in prison for more than 20 years. I know I am not alone in welcoming Marina and Alec to Oregon, and I wish them well and the very best in the years ahead. We are a Nation of immigrants. And as the goodwill shown to Marina and Alec shows, we are a Nation of profoundly decent and compassionate people. But the generosity that has been shown to Alec and Marina stands in stark contrast to the inhumane, unjust imprisonment of Ed Pope. If only the Russian government, indeed, if only the Russian President could follow our example. So I call upon President Putin not to just reinforce the worst images of Russia in the minds of the people of the West by prolonging Ed Pope's already lengthy imprisonment. Show Ed Pope the kindness that has been shown to Marina Khalina and Alec Miftakhov and release Ed Pope immediately.