Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the dedication of the new Klamath County Courthouse in the City of Klamath Falls, Oregon. The dedication of this building is much more than a celebration of an assemblage of bricks and mortar, it is a celebration of people who would not quit and who would not accept anything less than the best for their community. In 1993 the historic courthouse was rendered useless by two earthquakes less than three months apart. Within a week after the second quake, all of the employees were moved to a variety of venues and the work of the county and the justice system went forward with great difficulty. People literally didn't know how to determine where court was being held or where building permits were being issued. With no funds and no plans, the leaders and citizens of Klamath County rolled up their sleeves and got to work. In 1996 the Klamath County voters passed a bond issue to rebuild the courthouse and build the Government Center that opened in 1998. With the assistance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Klamath County was able to repay $1.7 million worth of bonds. The journey of quickly moving out of the destroyed structure to a variety of temporary quarters to the new courthouse was a long and arduous one. It goes without saying that the system kept working only because of the dedication of employees of the county and the justice system and the elected officials who would not be deterred from their mission. Today three hard working county commissioners, Steve West, Bill Garrard, and Al Switzer are justifiably proud of the new courthouse, which features many new innovations such as video arraignment and video hearings. The architecture of the building is remarkable in its aesthetic appeal. It is an impressive modern structure that remains loyal to its historic roots and the spirit of this resourceful western city. With grace and dignity, the Klamath County Courthouse declares that this is a community with high standards. As the house of justice in Klamath County, the courthouse has been dedicated to those who have paid a very dear price to preserve out system of laws and freedom, our veterans and fallen police officers. Proudly flying in the courthouse square are the illuminated flags of each branch of the military as well as the POW/MIA flag. Seeing these flags flying brightly in the clear Klamath County breeze is an inspiration. A special area is dedicated to the memory of fallen law enforcement officers who have given their lives in the line of duty. Mr. Speaker, my enthusiasm for what Klamath County has achieved must be tempered with the sobering thought that the death of these fallen officers is a grim reminder that the price of justice and security is often very dear. To honor those fallen heroes, I would like to pause for a moment and ask that they each be remembered in a special way. John E. Lambert, Oregon State Police; Ernest M. Brown, Lakeview Police Department; David R. Sanchez, Lake County Sheriff's Office; Richard C. Swan, Jr., Klamath Falls Police Department; Bret R. Clodfelter, Oregon State Police; Scott A. Lyons, Oregon State Police; and James D. Rector, Oregon State Police. The citizens of Klamath County will not forget the ultimate sacrifice offered by these fallen officers and neither should any of us in this revered body. It is truly fitting that the seat of justice in Klamath County proclaims every day that justice, freedom, and security are not to be taken for granted. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I salute the leaders and residents of Klamath County whose efforts to make this courthouse a reality have borne such remarkable fruit. This building will stand for a long time as a testimony to the rock-solid, iron-willed resolve of one of the great communities of the West. I am proud of what the citizens of Klamath County have accomplished and proud to have the honor of serving them in Congress.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, it is sure nice to stand here today and recognize that we have built a partnership that will actually get things done, and I want to commend the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my colleague, for his work on this legislation and thank him for his involvement in this. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1444, a bill that will help protect the threatened and endangered salmon stocks on the West Coast while assisting the farmers who are voluntarily seeking measures to protect these stocks, albeit at great financial cost. Under H.R. 1444, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation would be allowed to develop and implement projects for fish screens, fish passage devices, and other facilities in the States of Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho and California. These fish screens would prevent juvenile and adult salmon from passing through irrigation diversions and gaining access to ditches and water intake devices. Mr. Speaker, presently, irrigation districts throughout the West are being mandated to comply with the Endangered Species Act. In order to comply with the ESA and other regulations, irrigation districts are required to construct these sophisticated devices to prevent salmon and other fish from gaining access to their ditches. The construction of these devices come at great expense to the farmers, without any return on their capital costs. Under H.R. 1444, farmers would be allowed to enter into voluntary agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Bureau of Reclamation to share the costs of construction of these fish screen devices. Privately held lands and irrigation districts would have to put up 35 percent of the cost with the government paying the remainder. The farmers in my district, including those belonging to the Lower Valley Ditch District in Wallowa County and Talent Irrigation District in Jackson County say this is exactly the type of assistance they need to help them be able to protect these salmon and other fish in the rivers and streams. They are not looking for a way to avoid ESA; they are merely looking for an affordable way to provide the systems to help prevent the loss of fish. This cost-share program gives our farmers in the West some assistance in building these environmentally friendly fish screening devices, while simultaneously easing the burden of taking affirmative, proactive actions. It is a win/win proposal for the fish and the farmers. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support passage of H.R. 1444, the DeFazio- Walden fish screen bill.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report and to show my support for this legislation, especially with the local-into-local commitment for our rural areas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the passage of this conference report. On behalf of the thousands of people in rural Oregon whose only clear reception to the world of television is via satellite, passage of this measure is a welcome relief. I would also like to commend the Committee for providing the resources to help bring local stations to rural areas. It would be unfair for the viewer in the smallest of TV markets if they were left behind while the satellite companies provide local to local service in only the largest and most lucrative markets. People in rural Oregon deserve to be able to watch the local news, weather and community service programming, provided by their community broadcasters. This bill is a good piece of legislation that will provide new alternatives, and more competition in the market place. It deserves our support tonight in the House.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

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

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I would just say that I would hazard a guess, there is no district in America that is more affected by this legislation than mine. I think we could run the numbers and probably find that to be clearly the case. Every county commission within that district supports this legislation. And, further, I want this kind of a guarantee, because we have got some habitat improvement projects and other activities that need to take place on those watersheds, in those communities and in those counties that I want to see take place. Normally, I would be one to advocate for local option and local control, but this is part of a bigger compromise that will help the environment, it will help our schools, it will help our counties; and nobody in this House is probably more affected by this legislation than I and the counties that I represent.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2389, a bill that will provide much needed financial security for our rural communities and schools that have been so hard hit by the decline in timber production on our Nation's forests. In 1908, Congress recognized that the Federal Government's control of the huge amount of untaxed land in rural areas would have a serious negative impact on the ability of rural counties to maintain schools and other basic services. Congress enacted a law to pay 25 percent of the revenues from National Forests to the local counties so they can provide for their schools and their roads. So how does Federal land control affect a county today? Let me give my colleagues a couple of examples. Lake County, in rural southeastern Oregon, is larger than the State of New Jersey, and four times the size of Delaware. About three-quarters of the county is controlled by the Federal Government. So what do my colleagues think would happen to Delaware or New Jersey if three-quarters of their tax roll was eliminated and three-quarters of their land was handed over to the Federal Government? I think they would have problems meeting the bottom line just as Lake County does. I asked Lake County Commissioner Jane O'Keefe what this legislation will mean to her county. She said that, if the bill becomes law, the county would be able to again adequately maintain one of its most important investments, that of its infrastructure of its roads and its schools. It will keep the critical linkage between Lake County and the Federal forests that lie within its boundaries. It will provide Lake County with a temporary solution to the fiscal crisis that many rural counties are facing in maintaining infrastructure while creating a process to permanently address the county payments issue. Grant County Judge Dennis Reynolds told me that, in 1992 and 1993, Grant County received $12 million. Last year, they received less than $1.5 million. Next year they are expected to receive only a million. With a tenth of the receipts they received just 7 years ago, Judge Reynolds said Grant County is not doing any new contribution or reconstruction of their roads; they are simply trying to maintain the roads they currently have. I could cite similar examples in the other 18 counties in my district. This legislation is good for our schools, it is good for our counties, it is good for our communities. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and all my colleagues who stayed at the table and made this legislation possible.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Pain Relief Promotion Act and in support of the Johnson-DeFazio amendments. I share many of my colleagues' discomfort with the issue of assisted suicide, and I certainly respect the desire of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to improve palliative care and to ensure that the seriously ill receive safe, quality, and effective pain management. However, I also support States rights. The people of Oregon, not once but twice, through long and through thoroughly debated ballot measure campaigns, affirmed their desire to allow terminally ill people to seek help from their physicians in ending their lives. For most Oregonians, deciding on how to vote on this issue was a deeply personal and moral process. I know, because I too agonized over how to vote on this measure. I agonized as a father, who watched the life drain from a young son, and who watched as cancer worked its wicked will on a mother. I voted against assisted suicide when it was on the ballot because I personally have serious moral misgivings for it. But I also have a deep respect for the underpinnings of our democracy in our State and our country, and I respect the right of the initiative and the referendum process. Oregon voters are probably the only ones that have voted both through the initiative and the referendum process to stand up for what they felt was right for their loved ones and for their lives. Now, more than 2500 miles away, a Congress, foreign to many in my State, wants to overturn their will, wants to make that very personal decision for them. I have to tell my colleagues that in the year that I was out campaigning for this very office there were many times people came up to me and said, ``Are you going to go back there and undo what we did?'' Not on this issue, but on others. Do my colleagues realize how cynical people are about how they act at the ballot box, only to have some level of government higher or the Judiciary overturn what they seek to do? So, Mr. Chairman, I stand here today in support of this amendment and of the DeFazio amendment. And I want to close with a quote from Time magazine from a cancer specialist, Dr. Nancy Crumpacker, who said, ``If this bill is passed, doctors will never again be able to treat suffering people without the fear of punishment.'' I do not want them to have to operate under the fear of that kind of punishment. I want this decision, a very personal decision, to remain the way it has been crafted very carefully, not only by Oregon voters but by their legislature as well, so that it is between the terminally ill person, witnessed in that person's physician. So I support the amendments to this legislation.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, the Internet has brought countless improvements to the lives of many Americans in the past several years. One of the most promising uses of the Internet is its ability to connect countless people and businesses at little cost through E-commerce. Doing business over the Internet allows people all over the world to search for the best deal on a wide range of goods and services, destroying the traditional barriers to free and open competition and comparison shopping. It empowers consumers, especially in rural and remote small communities, to easily reach the marketplaces of the world. These factors have contributed to making E-commerce increasingly popular. It is expected to account for $1.3 trillion in sales by 2003. So far E-commerce has been allowed to flourish largely without the interference of unfair government regulation. Unfortunately, it is the way of governments the world over to tax and impede the growth of such a new source of prosperity. Mr. Speaker, I want to strongly support the House Concurrent Resolution 190, which would urge the President to work to prevent discriminatory and harmful taxes on E-commerce in the United States and abroad. This resolution would show the world that the U.S. House of Representatives supports the continued growth of E-commerce free from destructive taxation. Mr. Speaker, let us make another point very clearly. Let us never allow a tax or tariff on e-mail. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the Committee on Ways and Means, and my colleague from the Senate, Senator Wyden, for helping bring this important measure to our attention and for their bringing this to the floor.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, the September 21 earthquake that devastated Taiwan was a horror story. More than 2,000 people lost their lives, over 100,000 people were left homeless, and Taiwan's financial loss was in the billions of dollars. But the world reached out to Taiwan, delivering help quickly to this valuable member of the global community. The spontaneous outpouring of assistance to Taiwan and the earthquake's victims continuous today. Taiwan's government has been doing all that it can to help the victims of the earthquake, providing them financial and other forms of assistance to help them rebuild their lives, homes and businesses. Despite the devastation of the earthquake, Taiwan has once again demonstrated to the world that it appreciates foreign assistance and has pledged to repay the international community whenever they can. Taiwan's comprehensive effort to help its people is a sound example of how a democracy keeps its citizens' welfare at heart. Notwithstanding the earthquake. Taiwan has every good reason to be proud on its National Day. Taiwan appreciates its generous friends from other countries and its government and people are unified in their goal of rebuilding a modern Taiwan after the earthquake.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) for this legislation, the work that he has done, and the cooperation we have seen from the other side, as well. I rise today in support of H.R. 1487, a bill that would require public participation, public participation in the declaration of national monuments under the Antiquities Act. Today the President can create a national monument on virtually any Federal land that he or she believes contains an historic landmark, an historic structure, or other object of historic or scientific interest. In doing so, the President is to reserve ``the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.'' Do we suppose when Congress passed the Antiquities Act in 1906 that they thought a future president would use the act to protect 56 million acres in one fell swoop, as President Carter did in Alaska? Did Members think that the residents of Utah would one day wake up to learn that 1.7 million acres of their State had in effect secretly been declared a national monument, again without any public hearings or comments? That is the real issue here: Did Congress truly intend to abdicate its jurisdiction and empower a sitting president with the authority to designate literally millions of acres, without even notifying the Governor or the elected congressional delegations of the affected States? I do not think so. This really hits home in my district. Farmers, ranchers, landowners in my district are frankly concerned. They are scared. They are scared that one morning they, too, will wake up to learn that the President has designated Steens Mountain as a national monument. They are afraid that the characteristics of that mountain will change with the impending influx of tourists who would travel to visit a national monument. We have seen this, and we have heard reference to the Grand Canyon. We know the kind of tourist activity that occurs after these things are highlighted. Last month the Secretary of the Interior visited Steens and made it clear that if some form of legislative designation is not placed on the Steens, then this administration will act before they leave office. Do Members understand why my constituents are afraid? They are afraid because something is going to happen that they do not have any ability to have any say in. That is what they are concerned about. I went down there over Labor Day weekend and spent a couple of days looking firsthand at Steens Mountain. I toured it with ranchers, recreationalists, local Department of the Interior employees, and others who live and work, and have for centuries, around this mountain. I wanted to understand what it was the Secretary was talking about, and what it was that was going on in the Steens. After a couple of days of walking and flying and horseback riding over this mountain, I ended up with more questions than answers about why the Secretary was making this threat. From what or from whom was he rushing to protect the Steens, and what will the local effects be of another divisive edict from Washington, D.C.? That is what people are concerned about about our Federal Government, is that they pay the taxes and have no say; that these things come down in the middle of the night, and they are left out of the process. That is wrong. Before someone blindly places a designation on Steens Mountain, we need to carefully ask, does the mountain really need Washington, D.C.'s protection or meddling, beyond the public and private cooperation that exists today, and has for nearly a century? From what I have seen, I am not convinced it does. Steens Mountain is a treasure. The current management and protection of it appears to be working well. But as we progress, let us first clearly identify what the problems are, and then take the time to carefully consider the needs of the mountain and those whose livelihood depends on it for ranches, recreation, and tourism, before it is subject to some sort of executive mandate driven by political whim. That is why this bill is so important, Mr. Chairman. It is an excellent bill because it gets at the very issue of public participation. What is wrong with requiring the President to solicit public participation and comment and then consider it? What is wrong with requiring consultation with a State's delegation to Congress and the State's Governor? What is wrong with asking that a significant action affecting everyone have to meet the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act? This bill is an important piece of legislation that will go a long way toward alleviating the fears of the residents of Harney County and others who live near proposed monuments.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, last weekend I had the great fortune of visiting with the ranchers and individual citizens who live on and around Steens Mountain in Harney County. I traveled many miles over a majestic loop road that takes in the magnificent views of the vistas overlooking the Kiger Gorge and the Alvord Desert and the Little Blitzen Gorge. I also flew over these breathtaking areas and actually got on a horse and rode to the ridgetops of the Roaring Springs Ranch to look at the Steens Mountains. Many individuals who live on and around the mountain accompanied me as we looked at the management and multiple uses occurring on Steens Mountain. These farmers, ranchers, guides and others are the ones whose livelihoods would be significantly affected by actions of those who are thousands of miles away, those who perhaps have never seen the Steens or set foot on its soil. Let me tell my colleagues like Steve Hammond, who is the latest generation in his family to ranch and raise his family on the Steens or Fred Otley, who works early mornings and late nights on his family's ranch taking care of the cattle while handling the politics of the mountain, all the while seeking new and improved range management techniques or Dan Nichols, a rancher and county commissioner who is involved in the tourist industry through his family's bed and breakfast and an excellent one I must say, while still trying to manage the affairs of the county; Stacey Davies, a young ranch manager who with his wife Elaine is raising their 6 boys on one of the largest ranches in Oregon and who is incorporating some research and science and active management principles that are an important part of the ecology of the mountain; John and Cindy Witzel, a young couple who know the mountain as well as part of their packing and guiding business. These are but a few of the many people with whom I spoke and met as I traveled around Steens Mountain this weekend. All of them know the mountain intimately, and each has a unique story to tell. The underlying reason for my visit to the Steens is that the Secretary of the Interior threatens to unilaterally put down some designation before he leaves office if the Congress does not do so before that time. Well, after visiting the mountain, I found myself asking from what or from whom are we trying to protect the Steens? Do we truly need a new designation? What will the effects of a designation be? Will the Steens be better off if they are declared a national monument that will thereby draw thousands if not tens of thousands of tourists to this very pristine and remote area of southeastern Oregon? How many more roads and restrooms and paving and guardrails and everything else would we need for the mountain to accommodate such an influx of tourists? I wonder if the visitor to Yosemite National Park would find it a better experience today than it was prior to the influx of probably hundreds of thousands of tourists. Steens Mountain is a patchwork of private and Federal lands. The management of the mountain depends on cooperative partnerships between those private landowners and the Federal land managers. The success of this partnership lies in the ability of the private landowners to work with their Federal neighbors and for their Federal neighbors to be good neighbors. There are many excellent management techniques being practiced on the mountain today from proscribed burns to stream restoration work and monitoring. The health of the mountain is in an upward trend with private land owners playing an active and an important role in promoting sound stewardship on the mountain. Before someone blindly places a Federal designation on the Steens Mountain for the sake of a designation, we need to carefully ask does the mountain need additional protections. From what I saw, I am not convinced it does. However, if it is determined that greater protections are warranted, let us take the time to carefully consider the needs of both the mountain and those whose livelihoods defend on it for ranching, for recreation, and for tourism. Let us not spoil Steens Mountain. The successful management of the Steens, with or without some form of national designation, depends upon the close cooperation of the private landowners and those in the community who live on and around the mountain. Now is not the time for the Federal Government to shove some designation down their throats.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Workplace Preservation Act and in support of American small business. All we're asking is for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to delay implementation of a new workplace ergonomics rule until the National Academy of Science finishes a study of the effects of workplace ergonomics. The rule that OSHA wants to implement is conservatively estimated to cost Americans $3.5 billion a year. As a small business owner, I am very concerned about how federal regulations affect people and their jobs. Too often the people who suffer are not only the small business owners, but also their employees. And the regulation being discussed by OSHA is indeed large. It could have harmful effects on the economies of the small towns that dot my district where there are not many choices of where to work. Often in Central, Southern, and Eastern Oregon, if you lose your job at the local tire store or construction company, there are no other employment choices. The federal government has already played a role in driving the unemployment rate in Grant County to almost 17% in April of this year by halting access to the federal lands that dominate the landscape of Oregon. Now it wants to micro-manage small business? I believe that before the federal government implements a drastic increase in its interference in America's small businesses, it needs all the information it can get on ergonomics. It is not too much to ask OSHA to wait to implement its rule until we have a chance to examine the ergonomics study being performed by NAS at the request of Congress. Mr. Chairman, I join the small business owners of America in thanking my friend from Missouri, Mr. Blunt, for his leadership on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable and pro small-business bill.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, in the vast Second Congressional District of Oregon lies a city named Redmond, also known as ``Flag City USA.'' Redmond is called ``Flag City USA,'' because currently it proudly displays 687 flags that have been flown over our Nation's Capitol. I would like to commend the citizens of Redmond for this great project that shows a strong sense of community spirit and patriotism. The first display of flags was on July 4, 1991, the day that our nation officially welcomed home all veterans from Desert Storm and prior wars. The initial display was the concept of Mr. Mac McShannon. With the help of City Councilman Randy Povey, it became a reality. The flags displayed included 180 flags that had once draped the caskets of fallen veterans, which were made available by American Legion Post 44. When Mr. McShannon and Mr. Povey learned that the flags from the previous year would not be available to display in the future, The Downtown Redmond Flag Committee was born. A representative of almost every civil organization of Redmond met with the American Legion, and a mission statement was developed and it reads as follows: It is the feeling of this committee that flags should be flown on our city streets during appropriate holidays and other special occasions. Therefore, the acquisition, display, and perpetual care of the flags are now points we must address. Since this should be a community endeavor, we would like all area organizations, clubs, businesses and interested individuals to join us in a plan to perpetuate Americanism, the display of our flag and the Redmond Community Spirit. True to their mission, community spirit is exactly what the city has shown. Since the first formal meeting on September 20, 1991, until today, the Flag Committee has obtained 687 flags, all of which have been flown over our Nation's Capitol and their final goal is 1,000 flags. Many local businesses have donated supplies, while local community organizations like Rotary, Kiwanis, Moose, Elks, Smokey-RVFD, Boy Scouts, Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, Chamber of Commerce and the City Council have kept the program going with their support. On Saturday, July 31, the City of Redmond will receive their 700th flag, a tremendous milestone on their way to the final goal of 1,000. I am happy that I will be a part of Redmond's celebration in achieving this milestone. Patriotism has rarely been more apparent than when you drive down the main streets of Redmond on one of the special occasions when the 700 flags are flown. Each time I see this display, a strong sense of pride in my country and those who have served to protect our freedom is renewed. I know of no other city in the United States that comes close to matching Redmond's efforts to honor our flag and American pride. I am proud to say that I represent ``Flag City USA'' in the United States Congress.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Wu and Hooley amendment. I understand what they are trying to accomplish, trying to get our watershed healthier. But I just came from 3 hours of a hearing in my district in a town where one has to drive 100 miles in any direction before one hits the first stop light. It is in a county where we have 15.1 percent unemployment. They have not participated in the economic recovery the rest of this Nation has enjoyed in the 1990s because they are surrounded by public lands and they have to have access to that resource. This amendment will hurt them because it will hurt forests across America, because it will reduce the cut that is available to be done. The chief of the Forest Service has admitted that he does not have the resources to meet the allowable sale quantity of the cut that is available. That is what I was told from a hearing in the last day or so; that even with this money it will be tight. They have not been meeting their targets. We all know that. This will not help that. This will not help our schools. This will not help jobs. That is part of why the Western Council of Industrial Workers issued a letter in opposition to this amendment, saying that legislative efforts to reduce funding for forest management programs would seriously jeopardize the livelihoods of our members and tens of thousands of forest products workers Nationwide. Associated Oregon Loggers say the timber sale program is the only major Forest Service program requested for a decrease in funding from fiscal year 1999. This amendment will hurt. And it will not help clean up our forests. One of the major problems in our forests comes from overgrowth and lack of harvest and the concentration that occurs. And when that occurs, it is like a garden that never gets weeded. The weeds multiply and disease sets in and they are ripe for fire. I would ask my colleagues to go to the Malheur National Forest and look at the summit fire and look at the result of that and the loss to taxpayers and the loss to jobs when 40,000 acres burned in a catastrophic fire. Grant County has led the State in unemployment. Every county in my district that relies on timberlands has been adversely affected and this will not help. I would join my colleagues if they want to do something about pollution to our rivers, if they want to stop allowing some of our urban areas to dump raw sewage into the rivers when their storm systems overflow, or if they want to open up some of the 800 miles of streams that are in pipes throughout the urban areas. That is not very good fish habitat, now is it? We are willing to do our part in the rural communities if our urban friends will do their part. But taking away from this program will neither help forest health nor help the economic situation nor the schools nor the counties nor the people in those communities. This is a bad amendment and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I first want to start by commending the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for the work they do to make our parks as good as they are and their commitment that they have shown in their work. So it troubles me to stand here in some respects today, but we have a problem in Oregon. We have a problem in our forest with some of these fees. It is a confusing morass where one does not know, as the gentleman from Eugene, Oregon, (Mr. DeFazio) said, one does not know where to go and what fee to have and what park permit to get. Let me cite a story that ran recently in the Bend Bulletin, because I think they said it as well as anyone has. ``In the Deschutes National Forest, for example,'' and I am quoting here, ``a $3 day-use pass or a $25 annual pass is required to use more than 80 trails, virtually the forest's entire inventory. ``But wait. This year, a separate day-use fee to enter Newberry National Volcanic Monument has been scrapped; Newberry now falls under the trail park pass. At Lava Lands Visitor Center, which is not part of the trail pass program, the carload price actually went down from $5 last year to $3 this year. ``If you want to use the two boat ramps at East Lake you can, free of charge. But because a trail rings Paulina Lake, the boat ramp parking there is part of the trail fee program (except in one boat ramp in Little Crater Campground). ``And that's just in the Deschutes. Oregon state parks charge day-use fees, the Bureau of Land Management levies boating fees on the Lower Deschutes River, and national parks in the region require separate passes for visitor centers and to climb mountains. Campgrounds are an additional charge. Confused?'' says the story. Well, they go on to talk about it. And people are. They are coming up to the Lava Lands Visitor Center, and the visitor count there plummeted from 83,515 people in 1996 to 46,170 last year and remained depressed. ``We're still getting people driving up it the booth, seeing there's a fee, and turning around,'' said Mr. Lang, who is in charge of the Lava Lands. So we have got that going. I have no problem charging people to go into the campgrounds and the really improved areas. My problem in my district, which is larger than 33 States. It is virtually all Federal land, 60-some percent. Thirty-six million acres in Oregon are Federal lands. It is like, no matter where one goes, one is on Federal land if one wants to get outside of any of the towns. Then it gets confusing about what little store one has to go to, where to find a permit for what, and are they open on the one sunny day in Oregon when one wants to go out hiking. My other concern is this, that even if we can perfect this process, and perhaps we can, at some point this is the base level, 3 or 5 bucks to get a pass, what is it going to cost a family? How far in advance are they going to have to book their trip to go on a hike in the Federal forest? Can my colleagues imagine telling visitors to Washington, D.C. that they have to book 6 months ahead of time and buy a pass to determine if they can walk on the Mall. Because, in Oregon, our forests are the equivalent of the Mall. It is the place we have to go. We feel like we are paying for them once. And for just the opportunity to park along a road and hike out there, I do not think we ought to have the fee. I understand the need to make the improvements. If I had my way, I would take money for future land acquisitions. There always seems to be billions around for that in some quarters, not necessarily ours, and target that into the improvements we all could agree need to be made. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for the work that he does. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not present for yesterday's recorded vote on the passage of H.R. 1400, the Bond Price Competition Improvement Act of 1999, due to unavoidable weather delays in air travel and traffic congestion returning from the airport. Had I been present for this rollcall vote, I would have voted ``yea.'' I request that the Record reflect this position.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today on H.R. 17, the Selective Agricultural Embargoes Act of 1999. The farmers of Oregon work hard to actively market and promote the sale of agricultural goods throughout the world. Approximately 80 percent of all agriculture production in our State of Oregon is shipped out of State, with nearly half of that going to foreign markets. Wheat, potatoes, hay and pears are just some of the products farmers in my district produce, which are dependent on foreign markets for their success. Oregon's producers have long been recognized for their initiative in expanding foreign trade. Sanctions on foreign nations that disallow the importation of U.S. agriculture products interfere with the ability of Oregon's farmers to sell the quality goods that they produce. Once U.S. agriculture loses its ability to compete in the market, it is very difficult to regain that market share. America's farmers and ranchers cannot afford to be used as pawns in foreign policy battles. H.R. 17 would simply give Congress the ability to review these agricultural embargoes imposed by the President. This legislation would then allow Congress 100 days to approve or disapprove of the President's decision to impose an agricultural embargo. Should the Congress agree with the President's actions, then the embargo will terminate on the date determined by the President or 1 year thereafter. Should Congress disapprove this action, then the embargo will terminate at the end of the hundredth day after the congressional review period. This is commonsense foreign policy that our farmers deserve. Our Nation's farmers deserved the ability to compete fairly in the international marketplace. With farm prices at their lowest levels in years, U.S. agriculture needs to be promoted, not unilaterally restricted. This is particularly relevant to the State of Oregon, where 36 percent of all of our agriculture products are exported abroad. The farmers in the Second District of Oregon can ill afford the devastating effects that agricultural embargoes cause. I commend my colleague the gentleman from Illinois for introducing this legislation, and appreciate the opportunity to speak on this matter today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the one-hundredth anniversary of Wheeler County, Oregon. Wheeler County was formed by the Oregon Legislature in 1899 from parts of Grant, Gilliam, and Wasco Counties. Grant and Gilliam Counties had been carved earlier from the great Wasco County, which had a vast geographic range extending from the Cascades to the Rocky Mountains. The Centennial Celebration, taking place over three weekends this year, honors the people and places of this very special county, one of the smallest in Oregon. Wheeler County was named for Henry H. Wheeler, who operated the first mail stage line from what is now The Dalles to the gold fields of Canyon City, Oregon. Wheeler survived gunshot by outlaws and his racing stagecoach endured experiences straight out of the Wild West. The new county consisted of 1,656 square miles and it is as uneven and rugged as any Oregon county. Located 60 miles from the Columbia River, Wheeler County's land varies from high timbered mountains to deep river canyons. The county is sparsely populated with less than one person per square mile. Official state and federal designations by some agencies still list the county to this day as ``frontier.'' The John Day River winds through the entire county, taking in stretches of up to 70 miles between public roads. The John Day is the longest free-flowing river in the continental United States, and the only Pacific Northwest river to continue to have only indigenous salmon. The river winds past spectacular rock palisades, miles-long cattle ranches and a remote countryside largely untouched by time. Mr. Speaker, over the past 100 years, Wheeler County's economic base has been and continues to be agriculture. At the turn of this century, great herds of sheep covered the hillsides. Their wool was shipped worldwide from Shaniko, a bustling railway shipping port earlier this century, located just 40 miles away. Over this century, sheep eventually gave way to cattle, and some of the West's most prestigious cattle ranches exist here, most notably those from secluded Twickenham Valley in the heart of the county. Timber has also been a mainstay of the county over the past century. Towering ponderosa pines have provided livelihoods for all aspects of the timber industry, especially from the 1920s to the 1970s. The pungent scents of pine, spruce and juniper are the very essence of the county, bringing memories of home to those who are away. Portions of the Umatilla and Ochoco National Forests lie within Wheeler County, and they along with Bureau of Land Management lands, encompass nearly one third of the county. Wheeler County, however, is best known for its remarkable depositories of prehistoric rock fossils--the largest such deposits on the North American continent and the only place on this planet where 53 million years of fossilized history is visible to the eye in layer upon layer of rock strata. Scientists come from all over the world to study these fossils, which include prehistoric creatures such as miniature horses, saber-toothed tigers and long extinct bear-dogs. The John Day Fossil Beds National Monument has three units located in Wheeler County. The Clarno unit features rock palisades and hiking trails among its petrified mudslides. The main unit at Sheep Rock Mountain features a visitors center showing the many fossilized creatures and plants found in the region. The Painted Hills are a colorful badlands of softly sculpted mountains ringed in gold, red, pink, green and blue. The picturesque town of Fossil is the county seat. Its courthouse is one of only two original courthouses in Oregon that is still operating. Its artifacts are intact and the juryroom is still home to a pot- bellied iron stove. Fossil has the only free fossil-digging beds in North America, and delicate ferns, leaves and seeds embedded in rock literally lay on the ground for picking up. Mr. Speaker, no description of Wheeler County is complete without mention of the people. Crime is nearly non-existent in Wheeler County's small communities. Children walk to school safely and learn in classrooms where less than a dozen students work one-on-one with teachers. This is the kind of place where everyone knows everyone, newcomers are made welcome, and the news of what you did on any day gets home before you do. Many of the county's residents are direct descendants of homesteading families here and some of the original ranches are now operated by fourth generations. Some recall grandparents who came across the Oregon Trail. Hardworking ranchers, loggers, timber truck drivers and businesspersons, the people of Wheeler County attest to a century of steadfast determination and self-reliance in a rugged part of Oregon. Today's local leaders look to tourism, light industry and telecommunications as the keys to a bright economic future. The people of Wheeler County have a past to be proud of, and a future that continues to unfold opportunities. The pull of the future is only as good as the past that empowers it, and in Wheeler County a fine and solid history lays a well-lit path for the future. In closing Mr. Speaker, Wheeler County embodies the traditions and the character of the west as much as any county I represent and I am proud to be able to serve all the citizens of Wheeler County and the entire Second Congressional District in the House of Representatives. Happy 100th birthday Wheeler County.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. However, I would say that indeed, I thought I heard earlier a comment about how the coyote population was growing rapidly around. So it is hard to argue both cases at the same time.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I want to talk about how my district is affected by what is going on out there. I want to share with the body some letters that I have received from people not only in the district but from the State of Oregon with regard to this. The head of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the director, James Greer, has written saying, ``We rely heavily on Wildlife Services as a partner in addressing the effects of wildlife and predatory animals on livestock and crops. Specifically, they provide animal damage control assistance to help resolve depredations caused by black bear, cougars, and other predatory animals. In addition, they deal with human safety threats from an increasing cougar and bear population.'' These threats are from a cougar population that is very real. ``According to a recent survey conducted by the Oregon Agricultural Statistics Service, more than $158 million of annual damage to Oregon agriculture products occurs from wildlife,'' this from Phil Ward, the director of the Department of Agriculture in Oregon. Mr. Chairman, my district is one of the most rural districts in America. We have lots of family farms, and 55.5 percent of it is under Federal control. The refuges and all out there, we have enormous populations growing of predators. The Wallowa County School District tells me they have such a problem with cougars that they will not let the young kids off the bus until their parents are there to meet them. These are issues. Is this amendment going to deal with all of that? Probably not. I am not up here to make extraordinary claims. But the point is in these small rural counties, in these small counties that have 1,000, 2,000, 7,000 people, this program is an integral piece in an overall package to deal with predators. I want to show the Members a picture that does not look too damaging here, but this is a coyote and this is a lamb. The next picture in this series is probably too graphic for C-Span to show. So when Members hear about control, predator control, and that somehow that is an awful thing, the flip side of that is awful, as well. The flip side is the maiming that is done of sheep and cattle and all; animals raised for production, admittedly, but for problems that are caused by these predators. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment goes too far. I think it hurts a program that is very important to the rural parts of America and that helps not just a handful of wealthy ranchers, as some might say, but probably close to 10,000 livestock producers each year are helped by this program.

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

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point here is that we have many problems in my district in terms of predators devouring livestock. This program is helpful to that as part of the bigger package that combines State and local funds to deal with it. Sometimes it is one game person that is out there dealing with this, one predator control officer. But because they are from such small entities, the funding is all combined. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, if I might, the point is illustrative, here. The gentleman knows as well as I do, and as well as anybody out in agriculture knows, the next in a series of photos like this out in the real world, not in some pen but in the real world, is the devastation that we see.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the problems that occur when the federal government is the owner of a high percentage of the property in a given area. This week, my distinguished colleague from Virginia, Mr. Davis, has done his part to address these problems as they affect the District of Columbia. Mr. Davis' bill, The District of Columbia College Access Act (H.R. 974), is a recognition of the fact that the federal government's ownership of land in D.C. has so badly affected the income and infrastructure of the city that it has been unable to create a public university system that offers students a quality education at a reasonable cost. H.R. 974 would create a fund to allow students to attend public universities in other states at the in- state tuition rate, giving students from Washington, D.C. a better chance to succeed. I salute my friend from Virginia for his effort to help students from one area where local tax rolls are hurt by having a large federal presence. I think he and others from the D.C. area would be surprised, however, to discover just how much they have in common with residents of the counties in the Second District of Oregon. In fact, while the federal government owns approximately 26% of the land in D.C., it owns nearly three times that percentage of Lake County (76%) in eastern Oregon and Deschutes County (77.5%) in central Oregon. In fact, in 10 of the 20 counties of the Second District, the Federal Government owns over 50% of the land, and thirteen of the 20 contain a greater percentage of federally owned land than does D.C. Similar to the situation in D.C., this high percentage of federal land means that these counties have very limited taxable property, seriously hurting their ability to fund schools, roads, and other necessities. Exacerbating the problems for these Oregon counties is the fact that, unlike in D.C. where the federal government uses its land to employ people and contribute to the local economy, the Forest Service and BLM lands that dominate the Second District are increasingly off- limits to economic productivity. While in the past, rural Oregon counties could depend upon federal timber receipts, grazing fees, and other economic activity on federal lands to partially make up for low taxable property, in the 1990's the Clinton administration has sacrificed the economic well-being of Oregon's counties and turned its back on responsible management of federal lands. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the prevalence of federal land that is closed to economic activity has created a serious problem for many counties in Oregon and elsewhere in the West. I would like to once again thank my colleague, Mr. Davis, for addressing the problems created by federal land ownership in the District of Columbia. I hope that he and others from the East Coast will join me and my fellow Westerners in addressing the desperate needs of rural counties in Oregon and elsewhere in the West. Unfortunately, in some counties in Oregon, the question is not whether students can afford to go to college, but whether public schools can fix leaky roofs and counties can afford to maintain crumbling roads. These problems get to the most basic services provided by local government, and the federal government must be held accountable for the damage its land management policies have caused rural counties. I look forward to continuing to work with other Members of Congress to help counties in Oregon and other Western states provide decent schools, roads and other essential services to their students.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.