Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4286) to provide for the establishment of the Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge in Bibb County, Alabama, as amended.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

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

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam 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 H.R. 4132.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, in partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey, the Water Resources Research Institutes have the capability to provide important support to the States in their long-term water planning, policy development and resources management efforts. The state water resources research institutes, under the authority of the Water Resources Research Act, have established an effective Federal-State partnership in water resources, education, and information transfer. These institutes are located in each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam/Federated States of Micronesia. They have worked with State and Federal agencies and water resources stakeholders in their home States for more than 3 decades while acting as a network for the exchange of water resources research and information transfer among States. This legislation will reauthorize the Water Resources Research Act of 1984 for the fiscal years 2001 through 2005. It will provide increased funding for the water resources research program grants and provide an increase in the authorization for grants for research focused on water problems of an interstate nature. We recognize the important role of these institutes and the role they play in our understanding of water policy and planning throughout the United States, and I urge passage of this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1787.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1787) to reauthorize the participation of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Deschutes Resources Conservancy, and for other purposes.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 986) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Griffith Project to the Southern Nevada Water Authority.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam 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 S. 986.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, S. 986 was introduced by Senator Reid of Nevada and a companion bill was introduced by our friend and colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) on May 5 of 1999. This legislation provides for the Southern Nevada Water Authority to accept responsibility for administration, operation and maintenance of the Griffith Project and to pay the net present value of the remaining repayment obligation. In addition, the bill directs the Secretary to convey and assign to the authority all right, title and interest of the United States in and to the Griffith Project. The Griffith Project forms an integral part of a much larger water delivery system built separately by the Southern Nevada Water Authority and its constituent agencies. It consists of the intake facilities, pumping plants, et cetera required to provide water from Lake Meade for distribution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the author of the House companion bill to S. 986. (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time as well.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Texas earlier used a little better quality shot of this. My colleague from Maryland who just spoke talked about how we need more humane protection of livestock. Let me tell the gentlewoman from Maryland about this picture. Let me tell about this picture. Twenty-eight sheep were killed in one night by cougars. There were guard dogs, four of them, guarding these sheep. There were sheep herders on site when Sky Crebbs, a rancher in my district, ended up with this kill. This photo is so gruesome, I covered these up. My colleague from Texas did not do that. But it is so gruesome, I covered them up. This is not unusual. I want to enter into the record, Mr. Chairman, a letter from Phil Ward, who is the head of the Oregon Department of Agriculture. It says: ``According to a recent survey conducted by the Oregon Agricultural Statistics Service, more than $158 million of annual damage to Oregon agricultural products occurs from wildlife.'' All across my district, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing more and more incidents of predator problems: 144 pets were killed in Oregon in 1997, 165 in 1998, and 203 in 1999. Let me share with you some headlines out of our local newspapers: ``Agents track cougar that tussled with man.'' ``Cougar attacks and kills colt. Upset rancher threatens suit.'' ``Cougars come home to town.'' ``Calls from residents rise as the once elusive cat grows.'' ``Annie Hoye figured raccoons had gotten into an attached shed last spring when a banging against the side of the house woke her early one morning. But that afternoon she found the eviscerated carcass of a deer in her backyard. `It must have been about how farmers feel when they find a mutilated cow and blame it on aliens,' she said.'' ``Cougar shot in La Grande neighborhood.'' ``Cougar seen in Ashland still around.'' ``Elk herds continue nose-dive because of predators.'' ``USDA employee kills big cougar out at Cottage Grove.'' My friend and colleague from the fourth district may be interested in this one: ``A 7-foot 5\1/2\ inch male weighing 135 pounds was tracked down and shot after it killed its 30th sheep on a ranch near Elkton.'' This is a serious problem if you are in a rural district like mine, with 70,000 square miles. Part of the problem is the Federal Government is the landlord of over half that land. So I believe these people, who pay taxes and farm and ranch in this country, have the right to expect that the neighbor, the Federal Government on over 55 percent of the land, has an obligation to help manage this. That is why, with predators on the rise, we should not be cutting funds. We should be using as many non-lethal efforts as possible, but that is not always possible. When you get a 7-foot cougar that has killed its 30th lamb, it is time for action before it kills a person. Mr. Chairman, I include the letter referred to above for the Record. Department of Agriculture, Salem, OR, May 19, 2000. Hon. Joe Skeen, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Skeen: Early next week the House of Representatives will vote on appropriations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and related agencies. I urge your support for full funding of the USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services programs. The Oregon Department of Agriculture works in cost-sharing and program relationships with USDA Wildlife Services to address the concerns of wildlife damage to agriculture crops in Oregon. Many producers also provide cost-share for the use of this program. According to a recent survey conducted by the Oregon Agricultural Statistics Service, more than $158 million of annual damage to Oregon agricultural products occurs from wildlife. APHIS/Wildlife Services also provides services through cooperative agreements with thousands of entities nationwide, including state game and fish agencies, state departments of health, city and local governments, school districts, colleges, airports, the U.S. military, Indian tribes, National Wildlife Refuges, departments of transportation, homeowner associations, electrical companies and many other parties. I strongly request that you oppose any reduction in funding, and fully support adequate increases for necessary staffing and program costs. Sincerely, Phillip C. Ward, Director.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me to explain the significance of the Congressional Medal of Honor. Its storied history, and the legend of the heroes who have won it, is well known to most Americans. With this decoration, the nation pays tribute to the bravest among its warriors, the men whose courage serves as a timeless inspiration to their comrades and a reminder of the fierceness of the American people to our enemies. Among its winners is Stanley T. Adarns, a veteran of the Korean war. Serving as a member of Company A, 19th Infantry Regiment, then-Sergeant First Class Adams distinguished himself above and beyond the call of duty in action against an overwhelming hostile force. On February 4, 1951, Adams and his company came under intense attack by an estimated 250 enemy troops. Against this daunting force, Adams led a valiant bayonet charge, supported by only a handful of his own men. Despite sustaining painful wounds, he charged the enemy position and engaged in vicious hand-to-hand combat for more than an hour without rest. Due to the determination of Adams and the men under his charge, the surviving enemy retreated in confusion, removing the threat to the larger American force in the area. Perhaps no greater testament to his gallant service exists than the freedom Adams and his fellow soldiers bequeathed to the people of South Korea. They remain a free people today because men of courage and principle would not yield to the forces of tyranny. I will share the pride of his family, his community, and his nation on this Fourth of July, when Stan Adams' widow presents his Medal of Honor to the Oregon Veterans Home in The Dalles, Oregon. There it will remain for posterity, a permanent tribute to the bravery and dedication of one of America's greatest heroes.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a shameful violation of international government of Russia. For three months, an American citizen named Edmond Pope of Grants Pass, Oregon, has been unjustly incarcerated in Russia for the crime of espionage. He has been denied communication with his wife of 30 years and with his parents, who are in ill health. He has been denied legal representation, access to sufficient food and medical treatment and virtually every other right we commonly associate with the justice systems of civilized nations. Indeed, Ed's imprisonment is reminiscent of what used to pass for justice under Soviet communism, when men and women were dragged from their beds in the dark of night, never to be seen again. Mr. Speaker, Ed Pope is no spy, and he should be returned to his family immediately. We must send a strong message to the government of Russia that now is not the time to return to a system of justice in which human rights are disregarded so indiscriminately. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join our colleague John Peterson and me in urging the Russian government to send Mr. Pope home.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the members of Bravo Company, part of the 1st Battalion, 186th Infantry of the Oregon Army National Guard, who just returned from service in the Middle East as part of Operation Southern Watch. The 115 members of Bravo Company have completed 180 days of service in support of the NATO peacekeeping mission in southwest Asia. Deployed to aid in the mission of the United States Army Forces Central Command--Saudi Arabia, these citizen soldiers of Oregon served with the dedication that Americans have come to expect from those who wear the uniform of our armed forces. The deployment of the soldiers of Bravo Company marks the first time a combat infantry unit from the Oregon Army National Guard has been called to service since World War II. Like their predecessors, they performed their duties with a firm understanding of the gravity of their mission and a sense of devotion that would make any unit proud. Bravo Company follows a long line of dedicated Oregonians who have served their nation in the armed forces both at home and abroad. The members of this outstanding outfit have continued that tradition proudly and without reservation. As they return to the lives they left behind when they answered their country's call, each of these soldiers can do so with the satisfaction that comes after a job well done. On behalf of a nation grateful for their service, I'm proud to say welcome home to the members of Bravo Company.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

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

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with the fact about how complicated and difficult these are to work through. I think we would all agree on that. But what I keep hearing is how ICBEMP is going to resolve this issue just as the Northwest Forest Plan was resolved on the West side. Is the gentleman arguing that the Northwest Forest Plan is a success and has met its goals?

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to follow somebody from New York who has a district along the river much like the Columbia River, the Hudson River. There is a lot of similarity there. The difference is they do not have this kind of a planning process in place by the Federal Government, ICBEMP. I want to talk for a moment, Mr. Chairman, about the relationship of this requirement for this rule. The GAO, the General Accounting Office general counsel wrote in July of 1997 a letter to Congress that a national forest land and resource management plan generally was considered a rule for the purposes of this Small Business Regulatory Act. Failure to comply with this act is judicially reviewable and courts have invalidated agency rules on this basis. All we are asking here is for this administration to follow the law. And if there is a question about whether this is legal or not, would it not be time for this administration to err on the side of following the law if there is a question? Would that not be refreshing? Mr. Chairman, let me talk for a moment about the monument issue, because we have heard a lot about the Antiquities Act. I have a copy of the relevant statute here. Let me read from it, that ``any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument or any object of an antiquity situated on the lands owned or controlled by the government of the United States.'' That is what we are talking about, these objects, these archeological fines. It goes on to say, that the Government may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. And then it goes on to talking about archeological sites, small little objects, and we are going to protect the land around it. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not the smallest area possible to protect an archeological find, is it? These are the areas that have been approved already, and, in fact, I want to point out a factual error because the Hanford Reach National Monument declared a week or so ago is actually 202,000 acres, not 195,000 acres. These are monument proposals all in the works right now that people are talking about, could total 149 million acres, almost 150 million acres. Ladies and gentlemen, the ICBEMP proposal covers 144 million acres. I want to share with my colleagues the fact that that is an area, if we took all of these national monuments that are being considered by different groups and perhaps this administration into account, this is an area more than all these States combined: West Virginia, Maryland, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia combined. This administration can do this by fiat. This is not the way to manage public lands in this country. This is a violation of the Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act is about objects and monuments and those sorts of things. Read it. It is right here; I will share it with my colleagues. Mr. Chairman, I support the Nethercutt amendment. We can have this science in this planning, and we can have this administration follow the law as well.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. But the General Accounting Office, in 1997, says that this does constitute a rule in their opinion and, therefore, this small business would follow.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, so what he is arguing is that, if we are going to err at all, we need to err on the side of following the law. Right?

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Because, as my colleague knows, the court is back saying the plan that has been put forward after that has been done on the Northwest Forest Plan is still not in compliance. Because the survey and manage requirements that were shoved in in the dark of night by this administration says the Forest Service has been unable and may indeed be incapable of meeting. We still are not achieving the goals of that plan. My point in this debate right here, right now, is that to use that as an example of success is not fair when it has been a failure. I agree we have got to have the science in place.

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

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have here some charts that I think really tell a story very graphically. The first one here is the USDA Forest Service, acres harvested, fiscal year 1997 versus 1999 acres burned, and what we see here is the difference of what is going on in our forests in terms of acres harvested versus those that are burned. The next picture I show, Mr. Chairman, is from my district, the Upper Grand Run. That is not snow we see there. That is ash. That is from a fire in 1996. This particular part of my district was slated to have a timber management sale. That sale was let and then appealed. No harvest took place. Mr. Chairman, this area then burned. Do we want to talk about fish habitat; want to talk about fish habitat? After this forest fire occurred in my district, this is riparian area, this was a stream. This washed out in the next major rainfall, and 30 miles of salmon habitat were destroyed. Now, why does that matter in the course of this debate? It matters because we are not taking good care of our forests. As the General Accounting Office said in their report right here about western national forests, we believe the threats and costs associated with increasing uncontrollable catastrophic fires, together with the urgent need for action to avoid them, make them the most serious immediate problem related to the health of national forests in the interior West. We also believe the activities planned by the Forest Service may not be sufficient and may not be completed during the estimated 10 to 25 year window of opportunity remaining for effective action before damage from uncontrollable wild fires becomes widespread. The tinderbox that is now the interior West likely cannot wait that long for a cohesive strategy. Mr. Chairman, there was another fire in my district this summer, 113 acres near Sun River, Oregon. I quote from the local newspaper there, the fire started in a 75 acre stand of unthinned trees and consumed it, according to the Deschutes National Forest spokesman, but when the flames were blown into a 30 acre area to the northeast that had been thinned fire fighters stopped it. Fire fighters credited the quick control of the fire to the stands that had been thinned as a part of a recent timber sale, thereby reducing its intensity and allowing the crews to get the upper hand. Both of these programs are important to us, as we manage these forest lands, Mr. Chairman, and this is not an amendment that should be adopted to shift these funds. Frankly, my colleague and friend from Oregon should recognize when he has a good deal, and the deal he has is he can have both. He can have this timber management program to stop this kind of catastrophic fire, at least help with the timber sales and prevent that from occurring, and he has gotten a commitment from the ranking member of the subcommittee and the subcommittee chairman to work for the funds we need for fish habitat improvement as well. I will say, I have not been around this process a long time but that sounds like a pretty good deal that I think my colleague would be wise to accept and withdraw his amendment. Mr. Chairman, more than half of the timber sales on Forest Service lands are about stewardship purposes. They are to thin, because the biggest problem we have is disease and overstocking. Since 1909 we have done one heck of a job of putting out forest fires and we have reduced, as we heard the ranking Democrat say on the Northwest Forest Plan, an extraordinary level of harvest down to a very, very low level we have reduced. These fires burn. One cannot tell which way they are going when one is in them. Mr. Chairman, our forests are choking. Our communities are hurting. I represent people in counties that if they were in an urban setting one would say are oppressed, because 70, 75 percent of the lands around them are Federal lands. They live in these neighborhoods. Their homes abut these forests. These fires are as real in northeastern Oregon as they are in New Mexico. Let us not move this amount of money around and take money away from the timber sale program. Let us do both. Let us defeat the Wu amendment or hopefully have it withdrawn, which would be the better course of action, Mr. Chairman. With that, I would urge a no vote on the Wu amendment.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Brent Scowcroft, U.S. Air Force lieutenant general, retired, and former National Security Adviser, said of this vote, ``Denying permanent normal trade relations will remove none of the blemishes that China's opponents have identified.'' Denying PNTR will not fix the problem in China. None of us is here to defend the abysmal human rights record of the Chinese, but, frankly, it is better today than it was during the cultural revolution. Things are improving. Ren Wanding, leader of the 1978 Democracy Wall Movement in China said, ``Before the sky was black. Now there is a light. This can be a new beginning.'' I was in China at the beginning of this month with the Secretary of Agriculture and several Members of this Congress, two of whom just today finally made up their minds to support PNTR after much serious discussion. PNTR vote is a vote about what happens here in this country as much as it is the hopes of some of us to change that country. Today, in my home State of Oregon, they are preparing the first shipment of wheat to go to China in 26 years, because until this bilateral agreement came along, China used one of those nontariff barriers, called TCK SMUT, with a zero tolerance to preclude us from ever selling wheat into China. And they were successful for 26 years. That changes tomorrow when the ships leave Portland, Oregon, with 50,000 metric tons of wheat. That is important. My farmers are suffering. If there is one thing I have heard over and over again as I have gone around my district is about bad past trade agreements that left us on the wrong side. This one forces China to open its markets, reduce its tariffs, and puts us on a better playing field when it comes to trade. And that is so important to people who are facing bankruptcy and disruption of their markets. And, my colleagues, if we do not pass PNTR, we give the European Union, who we know subsidizes their farmers and ranchers to an extraordinary amount, our bilateral agreement, and we stick it to American farmers. And that is wrong, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 211, due to airline problems, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''