Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2781) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Molalla River in Oregon, as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise to oppose this legislation, and I do so with a degree of conflicting views. Let me explain. On the one hand, I have fundamental concern with the impacts that wild and scenic river designations can have on surrounding property owners, river users, either upstream or downstream, and the restrictions that such designations can have on private citizens. Most importantly, such designations preclude the ability to make future decisions without--I say, Mr. Speaker--without an act of Congress. There are many ways to protect and manage our rivers without imposing such absolute, permanent, and inflexible mandates that do not allow us to adapt to new circumstances, evolving environmental science, and changing public needs and views.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I am sympathetic when a Member of the House proposes legislation that directly affects the district that he represents. I believe that we must be respectful of the views of those who are elected to represent a district, and this, Mr. Speaker, is a two-way street. It means affording a level of deference when a Member has a proposal that affects just his district, and it means an even stronger degree of respect and deference when a Member opposes an action that is proposed in the district he was elected to represent.

It is very troubling to me, Mr. Speaker, to see bills introduced and referred to the Natural Resources Committee, as an example, that would have extensive and often drastic negative impacts on the economic livelihoods of local communities, workers, and their families in the Western part of the United States, but that are authored and sponsored by Members from the east coast and the Nation's biggest cities.

Mr. Speaker, this lack of respect on these issues is very troubling to me. Therefore, while I generally do not support such inflexible and restrictive river designations, I do have respect for the fact that Mr. Schrader of Oregon is a sponsor of this bill, and it directly affects his district.

At the same time, I must agree with the position clearly stated by Mr. Schrader during his testimony at the subcommittee hearing on this bill. At that hearing, Mr. Schrader said that he was sensitive to the fact that this river designation would impact over 400 acres of timber matrix lands. When timber is responsibly and sustainably harvested on these matrix lands, funds that come from these harvestings are provided directly to the local schools and communities in that area. This is a way of partially compensating areas of the West that are home to high percentages of Federal land for Federal policies that limit economic development. These timber matrix lands are a commitment that's been made, and they're critical to the ability of hundreds of schools to properly educate their children and for the communities in these areas to provide essential services.

Mr. Schrader, to his credit, said he was sensitive to this harm that his bill would have on these lands and the schools and communities that depend on these lands. In his October 1 testimony, Mr. Schrader specifically stated, ``I would ask the chairman and ranking member to work with me and my staff to ensure there will be no net loss of the acres available for timber management as a result of this legislation.''

Mr. Speaker, no such provision or protection or offset has been included in this bill despite the honest recognition and explicit request from Mr. Schrader that action needed to be taken to protect the lands important to the schools and communities in his district. Several efforts to amend the bill to simply provide that the lands be identified elsewhere to replace the 400-plus acres locked up under this river designation bill have been blocked.

The first blockage was in the Natural Resources Committee markup. On Tuesday, it was blocked by a Democrat majority on the Rules Committee. So it's been blocked two times. The need to address the loss of these timber matrix lands and the schools that depend on such lands was clearly identified and then ignored.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we learned on Tuesday, the day before yesterday, that 7 days earlier, on November 10, Mr. Schrader had sent a letter to the Natural Resources Committee chairman that appears to shift away from his subcommittee testimony that clearly asked for help in ensuring that the loss of timber lands be addressed in this legislation. This letter states, ``I am satisfied that this designation will not remove trees from the timber stock: there are no timber contracts in that area, and no timber sales are planned.''

Mr. Schrader's letter further states that on the question of offsetting logging acreage, which he alluded to in his statement before the subcommittee, he says, ``I see no need to add such language to H.R. 2781 at this time.'' This letter of November 10 appears to directly contradict the gentleman from Oregon's public testimony on October 1.

Was the statement made in his testimony a mistake made in understanding the bill that he authored? Or is the position taken in his letter a reversal of his request for help on fixing the timber matrix land issue? When he states that language is not needed at this time, does he mean that his view on the need for offsetting the acreage may change in the future?

Mr. Schrader later implies that there is no reason to offset these lands because no current timber contract exists, nor are there logging plans at the current time. So this begs the question, Mr. Speaker: is the concern for school funding only today and not what will happen tomorrow or in the future?

Of course there are no logging jobs at this moment. It is well-known throughout the Northwest that timber harvest is at a standstill due to the struggling economy and the sharp drop in housing starts. In fact, just yesterday the Natural Resources Committee approved a bill to allow for existing Federal logging contracts to be extended due to the poor economic conditions. I think that's a good idea.

So yesterday, just to put this into perspective, the bad timber market is used to push legislation to ensure existing contracts can be carried forward, but today the bad market is used as an excuse for legislation that will lock up hundreds of acres, not just until the market turns around but forever.

Mr. Speaker, these are not insignificant questions, and I think that there needs to be some clarification of that. So I hope very much that we have an opportunity to resolve this apparent discrepancy as this debate continues.

Again and again, this Congress acts to remove more and more land from the West from active, sustainable timber management. It is our schoolchildren that are paying the highest price, as school budgets are squeezed even tighter due to the actions of the Federal budget. You can't advocate for these schools and for wiser timber and forest management to ensure jobs in towns across the Northwest while at the same time advancing legislation that makes the problem permanently worse, and that's exactly what this bill does.

Some may say, well, it's only 400 acres. Yet if that was such a small amount, then why the resistance to offsetting these lands? The offset ought to be easy if this issue is just a small acreage. The fact of the matter is is that this 400 acres comes on top of thousands and thousands of acres that have been locked up in recent years. Excusing these 400 acres today feeds the notion that tomorrow or next week perhaps we can excuse taking another 6,000 acres away from helping schools and rural communities.

I believe that Congress must take responsibility for its actions and the impact that it's having. It's time to demand that schoolchildren in small towns don't pay the price for the unwillingness of those in Congress to provide offsets for their actions. So it's for these reasons, Mr. Speaker--again, with deference to the gentleman who sponsored this bill, affecting only his district--that I must oppose this bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman from Oregon yield?

I thank very much the gentleman yielding.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am very sensitive to Members of Congress who have projects or issues within their districts to be able to do them. I just, as I mentioned in the committee and as I mentioned on the floor, I just have a general problem with the wild and scenic designation. It is on that principle that I rise to oppose this.

But I do want a clarification because I spent extensive time in my opening statement talking about your testimony in front of the subcommittee on this issue where you said very specifically that you recognized this as timber matrix land, and you wanted to work with the chairman and the ranking member, myself and Mr. Rahall, so there would be no net loss, meaning you would be open to transfer of lands or whatever the case may be. We attempted to accommodate you with an amendment that we had that unfortunately was ruled nongermane, and so we didn't get a chance to address that. The second chance we had at that was in the Rules Committee where they can waive the rules, and they decided not to.

I would like to ask the question, it appears to me that now you have reversed your position because you have said that there is no potential timber harvest, and I would like you to clarify what you mean by that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just wish the gentleman would have yielded to me because he did not acknowledge his change of view of his testimony where these matrix lands are potential revenue if in fact they are harvested. He just simply said there will be no harvesting. But by passing this bill, you will forever, you will forever, Mr. Speaker, take those 400 acres out of ever being harvested. So that begs the question, if there is no logging now, what about in the future if the market turns around and there is a higher demand, how do we go back and get these 400 acres or potentially 6,000 acres in the future? That is the question, and that is always the fundamental question on these issues.

Keep in mind, our national forest lands and our Federal lands were designed to be for multiple purpose, and that means commercial purposes. On timberland, that obviously means logging activity which benefits local communities.

And in this bill, I acknowledged in my opening statement, it is a small sector of land. Nevertheless, it is the principle. And the gentleman, unfortunately, did not respond to that particular issue. He just simply said the government when he said the bureau, but he didn't talk about the impact it would potentially have on local communities because of the lack of potential harvesting in the future.

I think a land transfer and trade would have been very easy to do, and that could have been accomplished if we had adopted the amendments that we offered in committee, and the amendment that was denied to be even debated on this floor, which seems to be a pattern, but that is another story. So these potential 400 acres will now be gone forever if this bill were ever to become law. The drip, drip, drip of acreage being taken away leads to other issues.

So while I respect the gentleman, and he talked very clearly about the potential benefits, I suspect that there will be a time in the future, if this bill were to become law, that there will be an ensuing lawsuit that will probably tie up some of the activity that he hopes to preserve for future tourism. Why do I say that? Because that has been a pattern, unfortunately, in many parts of the West.

I have always felt that Federal lands ought to be multiple use, and when you put restrictions on them, you put restrictions not only on commercial activity but on recreational activity. That is where this goes. But this issue here is very simple. The communities

that depend on the revenue coming from commercial activities on these lands are, under this bill, denied forever in the future from getting any revenue from those lands.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

In response to my friend from Arizona, the subcommittee chairman, he said that logging, or commercial activity, could happen on these lands, specifically logging. But there is a proviso in there, as long as there is, and I will paraphrase, nondegradation of the existing area.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been around this business long enough to know that when there is a term like that and someone is opposed to some action or commercial activity, boom, you go to court right away, which means the costs go up, and, therefore, there are no contracts. And so you have de facto locked up these lands from any commercial activity. I think that is wrong.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would hang around, I will be more than happy to interact with him. He made a point I would like to elaborate on, and I will yield to him to follow up.

He said two things in his remarks. He said, I believe, that this is an area that should never be logged. Listen, I respect the fact that he has that position. He's very straightforward. I mean, I have no problem with that position. I may disagree with it, but I certainly have no problem with that position. But if that is the case and that is the argument and the fact is that this land is never going to be lost, then for goodness sakes why didn't we take into consideration the fact that there are 400-plus acres that could have easily been transferred in a land transfer to someplace else to keep at least the economic viability in hand? That was not done. The gentleman from Oregon, the sponsor of this bill, asked for that. I was certainly willing to accommodate that, and we did that in our amendment.

Now, if the idea is that you're going to lock up these lands forever, at least that's being straightforward. But that certainly isn't how this has been talked about and debated here on the floor today.

Secondly, the gentleman from Oregon, again, the one from downtown Portland, made this observation: he said that Washington has more lands that are designated like this than Oregon, the implication meaning that maybe they want to catch up.

Let me offer maybe a little different twist on that because I stated, based on my experience in my State that when you have designations like this, you restrict the access to those areas. Now, hopefully that doesn't happen. Hope springs eternal. Every time we have this sort of activity in Washington State, this issue is brought up and don't worry, and then you look in the future and it happens. It happened with a particular part of my district, for example, that was designated a wilderness area 20-some years ago, and we're

having a dickens of a time just trying to get the road to that area opened. Why? Because of the restrictions.

So I will just tell my friends from Oregon that if they want to catch up with Washington, then you'd better watch out what you're trying to catch up to, because what you're catching up to is more restrictive activity.

Now, it's 10 minutes to 10 back in the Pacific time zone. I am sure there are a lot of interested folks that are affected by this. I hope that they would take that part into consideration, and I hope they would take that part into consideration that, yes, these lands could be potentially logged as long as there was no degradation. Look at that word ``degradation'' and connect the dots as to how that would end up in court if, in fact, there were a contract.

All of these things are real, Mr. Speaker, and so I just bring them up.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my friend from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I really appreciate my friend from Oregon, Mr. Walden, making his statement because this is just a very, very small part of the complex issues surrounding our national forest lands, and I thought he put it very much into perspective.

I too in my State in the last several years have suffered from a number of forest fires. And it gets very, very frustrating that after the fire is put out that the potential harvestable leftover there is subject to litigation and you can never harvest it, which simply means that that timber becomes fuel for the next fire, and yet that is our policy.

How that relates to this bill is that the focus, at least on my part, and I acknowledge that it is a very small portion and it's only 400 acres, but we are forever taking those 400 acres out of potential commercial activity.

And it just seems to me that this is one part of it that we ought to be at least working and dealing cautiously with, because it's symptomatic of the larger issue of timber management in this country, as so eloquently stated by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to reserve my time at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I inquired a moment ago how much time. How much time again? And if I could inquire of my friend from Arizona again if there's any speakers. I noted that the gentleman from Oregon came down, and that's why I reserved. And I just wonder if the gentleman has any more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I made reference several times in my remarks of the unintended consequences, or alluded to unintended consequences, that happen with legislation like this. And let me give you a real-life example, and again, I alluded to it in my remarks.

I'm talking specifically about the Stehekin town at the end of Lake Chelan in my district. This is a town that has no roads going into it. The only way you can get there is by boat, up the Lake Chelan, or by an airplane that can land on the lake. This is a gateway to a wilderness area, and this wilderness designation was made some 20 years ago. There's a road that goes back about 20 miles to hit the wilderness area. This is an economic driver for the town of Stehekin.

Well, unfortunately, the road is in a wilderness area, and this is the unintended consequence, because you get a lot of snowfall in the Cascades, and this road gets washed out occasionally. It got completely washed out several years ago, and the obvious solution to that is to repair the road so that you can still have access to the wilderness area. But you have the one problem in this particular case, and that is, the road is in a wilderness area, which means there's no wiggle room. And so, it is literally taking an act of Congress, Mr. Speaker, to rebuild a dirt road to give access to a wilderness area.

Now, I'm sure that that wasn't intended when this bill was passed by the Congress before I got here in the late 1980s. I'm sure that that was not the case, and yet, we passed the bill out of the House, I'm very pleased, in a bipartisan note. But just think about this principle. This is a road that gives you access to a wilderness area, but it happens to be on wilderness land. An act of nature washes out that land, and it takes an act of Congress, for goodness sakes, to make it whole again so you have economic activity.

Several Members, several of my colleagues from Oregon have talked about the great economic activity that this designation is going to have. I hope they're right. But they should take into account a real life example in a small part of a State just north of them, namely, what's happened to the community of Stehekin at the top end of Lake Chelan in my district, because these are the real-life happenings and the unintended consequences that happen when you give total authority to the Federal Government.

I hope it doesn't happen on the Molalla River, I truly don't. But I suspect, as I said earlier in my remarks, that that very well may be the case. And so I think that story is worth retelling, Mr. Speaker, because it's not told enough. The town of Stehekin is a very small town, and the issue isn't done yet. That bill is in the Senate. I certainly hope it passes.

But I might mention one other irony. Those that are opposed, that were opposed to rebuilding that road, they don't live in Washington State. They live in other areas of the country. Why? Because you cannot damage wilderness. Even though this happens to be an economic lifeline, I'm sure it was the unintended consequences that they're talking about.

So, Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise, as I said in my opening remarks, to oppose this designation, not because the gentleman from Oregon, the sponsor of the bill, is doing what he thinks his constituents want. I respect that. I really do. I just have experienced firsthand enough in my time in Congress to

see that this leads to unintended consequences, and there are better ways to management and probably to provide economic activity surrounding the Molalla River than going this far.

The second point is, we could have accommodated the gentleman from Oregon's concern about taking this timber matrix out with a simple land exchange. We're only talking about 400 acres. Yet, it was denied twice: once in committee and once by the Rules Committee. So those 400 acres, albeit small, are locked up forever. But, as I said, 400 acres today, maybe it will be 6,000 acres in the future. There's certainly been thousands of acres in the past.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to oppose this bill.

I yield back my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my colleague from California for yielding me time. I am opposed to the rule and the underlying bill for reasons that I will make clear and that my colleagues will make clear.

At this time, I would like to recognize my colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for 5 minutes.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You know, Republicans are getting very tired of being accused of not being sensitive to our environment. We are very sensitive to the environment. We want to protect water everywhere. We have been very, very vocal on that issue, especially this session, especially as it has related to the West, and my colleague on the Rules Committee knows that.

However, we are also concerned about jobs for the American people. We know that the unemployment rate has recently reached a record high of 10.2 percent, the highest unemployment rate our country has in 26 years, and aptly described in a Wall Street Journal editorial this week, ``It is no wonder Americans seem to have only three things on their mind right now: jobs, jobs, and jobs.''

If nothing else, the Federal Government should do no harm to the job market--that is common sense--but that is exactly what the Democrats in charge are doing with this legislation today. They are going to be harming American families by increasing unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), who is going to deal with some of the issues that our colleague from Oregon has raised on this issue.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding.

We have voted for all of the wild and scenic bills that have met the proper definition of wild and scenic rivers.

Not the one in Massachusetts, the Taunton River, and not this one.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You know, from almost the very first day when I came here, I heard my colleague from Oregon blaming George Bush for everything insufficient in this country. That started in 2005 and he is still doing that, just like many of our colleagues here. But the Democrats in charge can't hide from the fact that they now control the House, the Senate, and the White House, and what are they doing to solve the problems? Very little.

I want to say that the sponsor of the bill actually brought up this issue that our friends across the aisle are trying to say now is our issue, but unfortunately the sponsor of the bill has been helped to change his mind on the issue by the Democrats in charge because it suits their purposes more.

And actually, the GOP has been the leader in starting good environmental programs in this country, just as we were the people who passed the civil rights bills back in the sixties without very much help from our colleagues across the aisle. They love to engage in revisionist history.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this bill could have been brought to the floor under an open rule, and we could have been debating amendments. But it's been brought in a closed rule. Actually, this bill is probably going to pass, the rule and the bill will pass overwhelmingly; and the real reason that we're doing this today is to kill time again. We've been voting on a lot of things we haven't really needed to vote on with a recorded vote because the majority wants to, again, kill time in order to be dealing with problems where their majority is not going to hold very well.

What we are going to be voting on a little later today, we think, is a bill which our colleagues across the aisle call the ``doc fix'' but we call the ``doc trick.'' It's really a Trojan horse. Supposedly it is going to take care of the reimbursements for physicians in our country that are scheduled to be cut next year by 20 percent.

But this ``doc trick,'' as I said, is really a Trojan horse because it is not deficit neutral, and it is a bill that is going to increase spending by at least $209 billion plus another $70 billion that's hidden in administrative actions by the Department of Health and Human Services. So it's going to really cost $279 billion. When you take the ``doc trick'' in combination with the health care bill, the combination increases the deficit by $100 billion.

This is unconscionable in a time when we have the largest deficit ever in the history of this country, which is the biggest concern of the people in this country. They are not as concerned about health care as they are about jobs and about the horrible debt that we are incurring not only for ourselves but for our children and our grandchildren.

Republicans have made a commitment that if we take back the majority next year, we will fix this reimbursement for physicians permanently. But that's not what's going to happen with the ``doc trick'' shell game that is being brought to us. And what they're going to do is say that it's going to be compliant with PAYGO.

You know, every time I hear the term ``PAYGO,'' we know, and the American people are beginning to notice, that it is a big joke. It's been talked about as a joke by almost every editorial in the country. The Washington Post has called it a shell game, budgetary smoke and mirrors. It's going to add billions to the deficit even though President Obama promised, ``If you're a taxpayer concerned about deficits, I want to reassure you that I am too. That's why I have pledged I will not sign health insurance reform that adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade and I mean it.'' This was said by President Obama in Shaker Heights, Ohio, on the 23rd of July.

We also know that the Senate has already rejected a bill almost exactly the same as the one that's going to be voted on today. Thirteen Democrat Senators opposed it. Senator Kent Conrad said, ``I don't agree with just adding that amount to the debt.'' He happens to be a Democrat from North Dakota. Senator Evan Bayh, a Democrat in Indiana, said he couldn't support it at a time when we are hemorrhaging red ink. Senator Joe Lieberman, independent, but caucusing with the Democrats said, ``Out of nowhere we're asked to provide $250 billion to cover services without any payment for it, increasing the debt by that amount.'' He added that if lawmakers pass health care reform that includes a public option, the debt crisis will only worsen.

This is the wrong direction to be going in this country, Mr. Speaker, because we're adding debt; and, as I say again, the bill that's going to be presented today is a Trojan horse. It is not going to help our physicians dealing with reimbursements. It is a trick to say that it is being taken care of. It was taken out of the major health care bill.

Those are the kinds of things that we should be dealing with on this floor. We should have open rules, and they should not be doing their best to fool the American people on what is really happening with our debt and with costs.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to point out to the gentleman from California that Senator Helms was not elected to the United States Senate until 1972 and was not in the Congress when the civil rights legislation was passed in the 1960s.

Mr. Speaker, if this legislation passes as it's written right now, 420 acres of timberland will be lost and along with it local jobs and funding for local schools. As Mr. Bishop has suggested with an amendment he offered in the Rules Committee on Tuesday, a better name for this bill would be the ``School Children and Jobs Left Behind Act.''

Even worse, Oregon's unemployment level in September 2009, the latest on record, was 11.5 percent, up almost double from 6.8 percent in the same month last year.

Most of Oregon's economic output depends on the State's timber industry. Valuable revenue needed to fund schools has been lost as well. According to the Pew Center on the States, Oregon has lost 19 percent of its revenue in the last year and faces a budget gap of 14.5 percent in fiscal year 2010. According to the U.S. General Services Administration, the Federal Government already owns 53 percent of the State of Oregon, 53 percent. Apparently that's not enough to satisfy special interest groups to which the Democrats are beholden. This bill will lock up 420 more acres that could be used to produce much-needed revenue for the State while at the same time refusing to open up an equal amount of Federal land to offset more job losses during a recession.

As Ranking Member Hastings described to the Rules Committee, it's longstanding tradition that the Natural Resources Committee be respectful of the views of those elected to represent a district and show deference when a Member opposes an action that's proposed in the district that Member was elected to represent.

In his testimony to the subcommittee, Mr. Schrader specifically asked that as this bill moves forward, work be done to ensure that there will be no net loss of acres available for timber management as a result of this legislation. However, Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee blocked an amendment offered by Mr. Bishop to ensure the lost timberlands were offset and the health of the local economy be maintained. Mr. Bishop again offered an amendment to provide an offset for lost timberlands, but it was rejected by the Democrats on the Rules Committee.

In fact, the rule we have before us today is a closed rule, as I said earlier. No amendments were allowed by Democrats in charge of the Rules Committee. By choosing to operate in this way, the majority has again cut off the minority and their own colleagues from having appropriate input in the legislative process.

By choosing to stifle debate, the Democrats in charge have denied their colleagues on both sides of the aisle the ability to do the job they have been elected to do: offer ideas that represent and serve their constituents. They are denying Members the ability to offer improvements to this legislation, and this is an injustice to their colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Our colleagues across the aisle are limiting what ideas can be debated on the floor and which constituents can be adequately represented in the House. Our constituents in both Republican and Democrat districts are struggling to make ends meet, are facing unemployment, and yet are simultaneously being cut out of participating in a debate over how their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent by the Federal Government.

Why is the majority blocking debate on such important legislation? Are they afraid of debate? Are they protecting their Members from tough votes? Are they afraid of the democratic process?

Mr. Speaker, it's troubling to me we're debating this legislation today when my constituents and all Americans are confronted with dire economic hardships that remain unaddressed. Families all over the country are struggling to find jobs to provide for their children and keep food on their tables. Yet while Rome burns, this Congress is wasting the day talking about whether or not a river should be designated as ``wild and scenic'' and trying to pass a policy that will do even more harm to the economy.

We cannot afford to lose more jobs. The U.S. national debt is currently $12 trillion. With over 300 billion people in the United States today, each citizen's share of this debt right now is $38,800. The national debt has continued to increase at an average of $3.88 billion per day since September 28, 2007.

We can no longer blame the deficit and the economic difficulties today on the previous administration. As I said earlier, the Congress and the administration are now controlled by Democrats. They continue to borrow money, and it's being spent by Speaker Pelosi and the Obama administration; and as a result, the unemployment rate continues to rise and the deficit continues to rise.

Since the Democrats took control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt has increased by $3.282 trillion. Since President Obama was inaugurated just 10 months ago in January, the national debt has increased by $1.325 trillion. Almost 1 year after President Obama was elected and 3 years since the Democrats took majorities in Congress, the Department of Treasury has reported that under the Democrats' control, 2009 was the worst fiscal year in this Nation's history. The results get more disastrous with each passing day.

I have opposed all these efforts to raise the debt limit, and we're going to be facing that again very shortly. According to analysis by the Heritage Foundation, the White House projects $10.6 trillion dollars in new deficits over the next decade. That is nearly $80,000 per household in new borrowing. It's beyond time to stop digging. The new budget estimates, including an estimated total national debt of $24.5 trillion in 2019 under President Obama's budget, are alarming and unsustainable. The result will be the highest level of spending and debt in American history.

Mr. Speaker, we need to be dealing with this. We need to be putting people back to work. We don't need to be increasing the debt with every passing day by passing bills that will do that and playing a shell game with the American people.

One of the best things that's happened this year is that the American people are paying much closer attention to what is going on in the Congress. They've learned they can read the bills if the bills are ever put out for them to read. They spoke in New Jersey, they spoke in Virginia in the election earlier this year, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to start paying attention, as we have been paying attention all year long.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, you said I had 3 minutes. There's so much to say in so little time.

I do want to point out--and it's in the Record, it's easy for people to check out--that the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee in the 1960s defeated bringing up civil rights legislation until the Speaker of the House increased the membership on the Rules Committee, so that the increased Democrats could vote with the Republicans to bring the civil rights legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so an amendment can be added to the rule. The amendment to the rule would provide for separate consideration of H. Res. 554, a resolution to require that legislation and conference reports be posted on the Internet for 72 hours prior to consideration by the House. It does not affect the bill made in order by the rule. The amendment to the rule provides that the House will debate the issue of reading the bill within three legislative days. It does not disrupt the schedule.

This is not a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker. As Members of Congress, we ought to agree that, regardless of the legislation brought before us, we should always have the opportunity to read and understand the legislation before we vote. The American public agrees with this commonsense position. A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports found that 83 percent of Americans say legislation should be posted online and available for everyone to read before Congress votes on it. The poll also found that this is not a partisan issue; 85 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Democrats, and 92 percent of unaffiliated voters, favor posting legislation online prior to it being voted on.

Mr. Speaker, we're elected to Congress to represent our constituents. How are we supposed to determine what's right for our fellow Americans if we have to vote on something before we even have time to read it?

I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can have this debate and do the right thing for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 908 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 908.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 908 provides for consideration of H.R. 2781, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Molalla River in Oregon as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute, recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the bill, as amended. Finally, the rule provides for

one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 2781, would add two segments of the Molalla River totaling 21.3 miles in northwestern Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The two segments, 15.1 miles on the main stem of the Molalla River, and 6.2 of the Table Rock Fork, would be designated as a recreational river.

The Molalla rises in the Cascade Range, east of Salem. From its headwaters above the Table Rock Wilderness Area, the river flows through cedar, hemlock and old-growth Douglas fir forests, and basalt rock canyons until it meets the Willamette River near Canby. The Molalla River is an essential wildlife area for the pileated woodpecker and both golden and bald eagles. It is also within an hour's drive of the Portland and Salem metropolitan areas and provides significant recreational opportunities for fishing, hunting, canoeing, kayaking, white-water rafting, mountain biking, horseback riding, hiking, camping, picnicking, swimming and diving, all wonderful, great traditional American recreational activities.

These opportunities and a 20-mile hiking, mountain biking area and equestrian trail system draw over 65,000 visitors annually. I would add that the Molalla River also served as both a trail for indigenous Molalla Indians and as a vital trade route between pioneers in Oregon. The river is also where the cities of Molalla and Canby derive their drinking water.

In earlier planning analyses, the Bureau of Land Management determined that most of the river and the Table Rock Fork should be considered for designation as wild and scenic rivers. In testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee, BLM stated, ``the designation called for in H.R. 2781 would be largely consistent with management currently in place, and would cause few changes to BLM's current administration.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) for bringing this legislation to the floor today so we can ensure America's beauty and natural wonderment is preserved both now and for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

In response to the gentleman from Utah, I would say the

following. Two of the amendments that the gentleman offered to the Rules Committee on H.R. 2781--one amendment was nothing more than political talking points with zero substance. The second, the other amendment, was both nongermane and a violation of PAYGO under the House rules.

Further, I would add in response to the questions with regard to the Obama administration that, on November 13, the Obama administration reiterated in a letter to Chairman Grijalva, stating, ``There are no timber contracts within the Federal lands proposed for designation under H.R. 2781.'' I would like to insert into the Record a letter from the department indicating that to the chairman.

Department of the Interior,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, DC, November 13, 2009.

Hon. Raul Grijalva,

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public

Lands, House Committee on Natural Resources, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are responses prepared by the

Bureau of Land Management to questions submitted following

the Subcommittee's Thursday, October 1, 2009, hearing on,

H.R. 2781, ``Molalla River: National Wild and Scenic River

System.''

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material to

the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and public

Lands.''

Sincerely,

Christopher P. Salotti,

Legislative Counsel, Office of

Congressional and Legislative Affairs.

Enclosure.

Questions for Robert Abbey, Director, Bureau of Land Management,

Department of the Interior.

Questions from Representative Grijalva:

1. How does BLM usually manage private land within wild and

scenic river corridors?

Answer. Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Federal

government has no authority to manage private lands within

wild and scenic river corridors.

2. Are there any timber contracts within the corridor of

the proposed designation for the Molalla?

Answer. The BLM in Oregon informs me that there are no

timber contracts within the Federal lands proposed for

designation under H.R. 2781, which designates segments of the

Molalla River in Oregon as components of the National Wild

and Scenic River System.

Third, with regard to Mr. Schrader's comments, the gentleman said that we should have heeded Mr. Schrader's comments. Well, guess what. Representative Schrader, who represents this area, expressed a concern, as the gentleman indicated, about this issue at the Natural Resources Committee hearing in October. He also states in a letter to us, that I will have inserted in the Record, that since that time he has investigated this concern with the agencies on the ground and wrote the committee on November 10 to say that he was totally satisfied that the bill will not remove trees from the timber stock because there are no timber contracts planned in the area, and there are none now, and there are none planned. So I would like to submit for the Record Mr. Schrader's letter.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, November 10, 2009.

Hon. Nick Rahall

Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth

House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to express my support for the

committee's amendments to my bill, H.R. 2781, to designate

segments of the Molalla River in Oregon as components of the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

At the October 28th markup of H.R. 2781, mention was made

of a statement in my testimony regarding 420 acres of timber

management, or ``matrix,'' lands that will be within the

river corridor when my bill is enacted. Since the October 1st

hearing before the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands

Subcommittee at which I testified, I have consulted both the

Bureau of Land Management and committee staff about those

matrix lands. I am satisfied that this designation will not

remove trees from the timber stock: there are no timber

contracts in that area, and no timber sales are planned.

I reserve the right to offset logging acreage in future

bills I might introduce, but I see no need to add such

language to H.R. 2781 at this time. Thank you for your

support of this legislation which has overwhelming support

within my district and thank you for all your work you do as

Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Sincerely,

Kurt Schrader,

Member of Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, as part of the course of debate, the gentlewoman from North Carolina indicated that they have been very supportive of the environment, and she has indicated that they are getting a bad rap, as it were, for not being supportive of the environment. I would like to ask the gentlelady how many wild and scenic bills have they supported on the floor this session of Congress. I know we have had a number, and I don't recall a one that they have supported.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, in the 7 years that I have been here and the years that I have watched this Congress beforehand, I sometimes watch the floor and I can't believe what I'm hearing. I can't believe my ears. Today what I'm hearing on the floor really takes the cake.

The gentlewoman from North Carolina in her statement just now indicated that the Republican GOP had passed the Civil Rights Act legislation with almost no help from the Democrats. I can't believe my ears. It was the Kennedy and Johnson administrations where we passed that Great Society legislation. It was over the objections of people like Jesse Helms from the gentlewoman's State that we passed that civil rights legislation.

John Lewis, a Member of this House, was beaten on the Edmund Pettus Bridge to get that civil rights legislation passed. Tell John Lewis that he wasn't part of getting that legislation passed.

I sometimes cannot believe what I hear on this House floor. And I will tell

you today that I will stand by these statements, and I am very proud of what my party has done to advance civil rights legislation in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the gentlewoman's statement where she talked at great length about the fact that the House is being closed down, that the debate is being stifled. And I would like to remind the House of an earlier statement that I made that there were only two amendments submitted to the Rules Committee on H.R. 2781.

One of the amendments was nothing more than a change of the title which consisted of political talking points, added zero substance to the bill. The other amendment was both nongermane and a violation of the PAYGO requirements of this House, two of the most important rules that are part of the conducting of debates in this House.

So the gentlewoman is advocating that we break the House rules and agree to an amendment that is really de minimis to the grander aspect of what we're trying to do here.

The local community has asked for this designation, the local Congressman. In fact, you've heard today that three Members of Congress from Oregon all advocate for this bill. I'm sure there are more. The reality is that the local folks have determined that this is the best way to create economic development, and the 420 acres that are being so grandly discussed by the other

side as reason to oppose this bill, that are going to cause economic devastation for both this area and the country--well, the local folks don't believe it, and neither does anybody else.

This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to now yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I yield the gentleman from Oregon 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard quite a debate today. The debate was about designating a wild and scenic river in Oregon. But it has gone far, far afield from there. We've heard about the deficit. We've heard about jobs. We've heard about the Civil Rights Act and who was responsible for passing the legislation that did that historic. We've heard quite a lot that doesn't have anything to do with the reason we are here today, and that, Mr. Speaker, is designating the Molalla River as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, which will help ensure that social, cultural, and economic benefits of the area will be preserved.

For several years, an alliance of over 45 organizations has been dedicated to river restoration efforts and protecting the area from destructive acts. And the local community around the Molalla has asked for this designation. It is now up to Congress to act on behalf of the citizens and the communities at hand to preserve the river's historic, scenic, and recreational values; to protect the river's water quality and its free-flowing character; and ensure that Americans and Oregonians can enjoy the original character of this river for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's a good bill. The bill deserves strong support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I ask for that support. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the rule because an amendment that was under my name was not admitted in the rule by the Rules Committee. However, the issue at hand in both that amendment and the underlying bill is very small. It's 400 acres in Oregon. That is truly, in the scope of things, an insignificant number. What is significant, though, is the concept behind it, because it represents a larger, more pernicious issue that simply the leaders of this Congress are failing to address or even acknowledge.

Now, I have to admit that the fact that I am an old public schoolteacher is part of the problem. I spent 16 years in the Utah Legislature serving on the Public Education Subcommittee. I understand how difficult it is for those of us who are in the West, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from the other side, how difficult it is for us to fund our public education system. And part of it is from the example that I have before me.

This chart simply shows the amount of Federal land that is owned in each State. As you notice, there is a somewhat disproportionate amount in the West. The Speaker's State of Arizona has a great deal; my State does; the State of Oregon, a little bit less. But nonetheless, there is a significant amount of land that is controlled by the Federal Government.

Many of our friends in the East who don't have that same opportunity have a hard time understanding what it's like to be a public land State. However, the second one, perhaps the more difficult one, is this chart which simply shows the number of States in red are the ones that have the most difficult time funding their public education system. These are the States whose growth in public education funding is the slowest, the most difficult.

You will notice that there is a unique correlation to the amount of Federal land that is owned and the inability of States to fund their public education system. It's almost a one-to-one relationship that happens to be there. So the 400 acres that would be taken out, the potential timberland that would be taken out of potential production in this particular bill, actually is land that no longer produces timber today. That's part of the problem.

It's one of the reasons why we received a letter from California and Oregon county officials who have what's called O&C land. O&C land is land that is dedicated for timber production. This 400 acres is not considered O&C, but it is the same concept. It is land that could be used for timber production.

What this bill will do in taking this small amount of land is to finalize and put in statute the bad administrative decisions of the past which have taken it out of production so it no longer can produce the revenue that we desperately need in these States to try to fund public education. The sponsor of this piece of legislation understood that. He got it right. When he came before the committee in our hearing, he simply used this statement when he asked the ranking member and the chairman to find an offset so that they did not lose the value of this small amount, 400 acres.

Unfortunately, we did not find an offset, and that was the crux of my amendment, both in committee as well as before the Rules Committee. There needs to be some kind of offset.

It says something even more disgusting as well, that if the Interior Department--of all the vast acreage of land that the Federal Government owns, 1 out of every 3 acres in this Nation--cannot find 400 acres as an offset for the State of Oregon, there is something terribly wrong in the mindset of the Interior Department here in Washington.

The issue is schoolkids. Are we going to try to help States fund their education system or not? I recognize that my amendment was ruled nongermane. Our germaneness rule is used more in its absence than in its regulation. But the issue at hand is simply, the gentleman from Oregon was right in the hearing--he got it right when he wanted an offset. The leadership of this Congress was wrong when they decided not to heed his warning and not to give his request. Today it's 400 acres. Tomorrow it may be 16,000 acres in another bill or 9.8 million acres in another bill.

It simply says, our kids are props for political purposes around here, but we really don't care about trying to find a long-term funding solution. The Rules Committee made this amendment out of order. I recognize that they can justify that on the grounds of germaneness. They could have just as easily incorporated the amendment without that as well. We do it all the time.

We justify those kinds of decisions all the time. I recognize that the Rules Committee will take its orders from leadership. That has to happen. They cannot ignore those things. But at the same time, had the Rules Committee followed the wishes of the gentleman from Oregon, we could actually be setting a precedent to help kids. When the Rules Committee failed to heed the request of the gentleman from Oregon, the sponsor of this piece of legislation, when he was justified and correct in coming before our hearing, what it simply said was that we put kids at a lesser priority than other protected kinds of issues.

Once again, this is the problem. It is this amount of land that causes the difficulty of Western States--all of our Western States on a State level--to provide for their needs. And that's what our amendment could solve. That amendment was not made in order. That is simply wrong. Please vote down the rule so that we can put this amendment back in place.

I appreciate the comments made by the gentleman from California, and I think I tried to state those comments earlier on.

The letter we received from the Association of O&C Counties--that's Oregon and California--concerned about this particular issue does include and specifically mentions these 411 acres in this National Wild and Scenic Rivers bill. I also recognize that the gentleman from Oregon, who is the sponsor of this bill, has since sent a letter that says that it does not have an impact. It does not have an impact because of bad administrative decisions made earlier that have already taken this out of timber production.

What we are doing with this bill is now putting that in statute so that we cannot at some time reverse that with the ease with which we took them out in the first place. We have made bad decisions time after time after time, which has impacted the timber industry in these States and has impacted their ability to fund their local governments and especially their education system. That was the fundamental reason it was ruled out of order. It violated PAYGO because, if you actually did put that, those funds would have to be shared with the local States.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time.

I am sorry that the gentleman from Oregon came in late during the discussion and has left that side of the aisle. I want to make it very clear, when I was making my first statements, I did not say that these 400 acres were O&C lands--I made that very clear--but they are treated like O&C lands, which is why the local leaders from Oregon and California sent the letter and specifically asked any kind of lands taken out of the ability to be used for timber production be offset. They specifically requested in a number of other areas this particular area that will be made wild and scenic. This is the request that comes from the local leaders in California and Oregon which recognizes what happens when these lands are taken out of production, and they clearly, as I do, understand that there is economic development from tourism. There is also economic development from manufacturing and there is also economic development from timber harvest, and they each have a different role to play. And each have a different amount of money they do to help kids.

These local leaders recognize that fact which is why they supported what the sponsor of this bill originally wanted to do. Unfortunately, the House leadership has not recognized what his wishes were and has not done what the sponsor originally wanted to do. Though he has now changed his mind, he says these lands are not now producing timber, that is not the issue. The issue is will they ever be useful in that particular effort. That is what we are trying to do with the amendment which should have been made in order. It should have been part of the original bill that came out of the committee. There is no reason why it should not have been.

Now, I recognize there is a significant issue, Mr. Speaker, and let me do just one thing very quickly, because what these local leaders are talking about is specifically allowing them to have some kind of control over their own destiny. We see that played out in bill after bill and issue after issue on this floor.

The other week we passed a small bill, maybe some of you have read about it in the papers, about health care. One of the issues of that bill is it stops local, creative, alternative approaches.

The State of Utah started a local approach for health care reform. They got it right. It was based on empowerment of individuals by employers who would now have a common understanding of what they would have to spend on health care, to be able to give that to their employees, so the employers go to a State index where they have presently 66 options from which to choose. It was an effort to empower individuals. It is an effort of States to solve their own problems because States understand the unique demographic needs that they have in those particular States. Unfortunately, the bill that was passed, if it were to go all of the way through the system, stops the States dead in their tracks from actually implementing their own local reforms, just like this would stop the local areas from implementing their own local reforms.

Now, I hope we understand how significant it is that you can't get enough experts here in one particular room to solve all of the problems in the world, and we should look at the concept of States and local governments having their own ability to experiment and their own ability to meet their local demographic's needs and their own ability to come up with unique and clear ideas, and we should be empowering local governments to make those decisions, not restricting them with a one-size-fits-all mentality or telling them what they will and will not do on the local level.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on this bill. It is really tremendously exciting to the good citizens of Molalla and Clackamas County, Oregon, that we have this bill to vote on today. I'm sorry to have some of the discussion we've been hearing so far. It's basically irrelevant to the bill.

The idea here is to designate the Molalla River as a recreation river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act that was initiated by a small gathering of folks a few years ago, local river stewards and Molalla residents who were looking to preserve and protect their river and aid their local economy by increasing tourism. They came to me earlier this year with the idea. Our team liked it, and we introduced the bill. It immediately garnered major support in Molalla and Clackamas County. And as of now, this bill is supported by the city of Molalla, the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and over 40 Oregon-based environmental, recreational, and public safety groups. All recognize the social, economic, and cultural benefits of this bill.

In particular, I want to personally thank the many people who worked so tirelessly on this bill. This includes the president of the Molalla River Alliance, Mike Moody; the mayor of Molalla, Mike Clarke; Molalla City Manager John Atkins; Police Chief Gerald Giger; the executive director of Molalla River Watch, Kay Patterson; the president of Molalla Community Planning Organization, Jim Gilbert; and, frankly, Oregon river enthusiasts like Kavita Heyn and Erik Fernandez.

I also want to personally acknowledge Ryan Morgan, a lifelong Molalla resident and member of the Molalla City Council who tragically died earlier this year. Ryan was a river enthusiast and a strong supporter of this legislation. I would like to think he is looking down on us right now with pride over the vote and this particular piece of legislation that he worked so hard to get on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, the Molalla River is a national treasure in my State. Historically, it serves as both the trail for indigenous Molalla Indians and as a trade route between pioneers in the Willamette Valley and residents of eastern Oregon. Its Table Rock Trail, which is also known as ``Huckleberry Trail,'' was used by members of the Warm Springs tribe in search of huckleberry- and salmonberry-picking areas in the early days. Early settlers used its fertile lands and drinking water for homesteading, and its Ogle Mountain mine attracted migrants during the gold rush.

Today the Molalla River is known for its many recreational purposes, including hiking, diving, fishing, kayaking, white-water rafting, picnicking, mountain biking and horseback riding. It's also nationally recognized for its beautiful and scenic wildlife. It provides spawning beds for threatened steelhead trout and Chinook salmon and is an essential wildlife area for the pileated woodpecker, red tree vole, red-legged frog, northern spotted owl, Pacific giant salamander, and both golden and bald eagles.

Designating the Molalla River as recreational under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System would have tremendous economic, cultural, and environmental benefits for the region. Economically, we need jobs. It would attract more tourism and create tons of new jobs in a very, very difficult environment in Molalla, something the State of Oregon desperately needs in

its rural communities. Environmentally, it will protect the character of the river, preserving it so future generations can recognize its rich cultural, historical, social, and economic benefits.

I want to thank Chairman Rahall and Subcommittee Chair Grijalva for their support and efforts on this bill. I also want to thank their staff, and in particular Leslie Duncan, for all of their hard work.

A lot of focus has been around the comments the gentleman from Washington referenced that I made in committee. My goal there as a lifelong friend of the timber industry, particularly in my legislative arena, was to make sure that if there was impact on logging in this area, in my county, in my State so desperately in need of economic energy, that we'd investigate that. The committee--I appreciate the work they've done--and I and my office checked into whether or not these matrix lands were going to impact the timber harvest or any of the land in that area.

And I am pleased to report back, as has been reported, that the BLM has told us again and again that there are no timber sales in that area, and there have never been any timber sales planned in that area. So I guess I'm a little concerned that as I step up and try to make sure that the concerns of the gentleman from Washington are addressed, and we bring this topic up, which I hope we will bring up in any of the legislation that comes from his State and other States, that it seems like it's turned against one.

I don't feel in any way that I have changed my view on the need to make sure that if there is an issue, we have offsetting lands for harvest if it is going to affect local communities.

But no private landowner, I want to make this very clear, no private landowner in this area, including Weyerhaeuser, including some of the big timber companies and the small woodlot owners, is objecting to this bill. I go to the gentleman from Washington's earlier comments that if this is a bill brought forward by a Member who represents the State, and more particularly represents the local district in which this wild and scenic river designation is to be had, that generally he votes in favor of these things. So I ask him politely to consider changing his viewpoint and voting for the bill since such a Member has done the work that he asked to do in the first of all.

I yield to the gentleman.

I would like to reclaim my time.

I appreciate the gentleman from Washington's concern. As I said before, it is very explicit in my testimony and testimony from the chairman, and others who have spoken in favor of this bill, that we have investigated it. I am a full supporter of making sure that if there is a problem in the timber harvest or management area that is going to impact the economics of my community, that I will be there.

Right now, this bill is an economic driver for this community, sir. We actually have to make sure that this bill passes because the tourism that is going to happen in this bill is the big economic driver in this community. Right now we actually have serious drug issues in our State and, frankly, in this area where, if we have the opportunity to make sure that law enforcement has the ability to get special protection and maybe special opportunities, we can make sure that this area stays drug free. We can make sure that we actually have a better chance to make sure that this community is going to be economically advantaged. The men and women in my State and in my district are hurting, so I want to make sure we have economic opportunities.

Frankly, I would just like to say in my final comment, at this time this State faces tremendous economic hardship. We are one of the most heavily hit States in the Nation. We are an income tax State, and we are hurting. We are hurting bad in this economy.

I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 2781. Aid the good people of Molalla and Clackamas County. They need your help. This will attract tourism to the river, more business for river guides, anglers, more stops at the local restaurants, hotels, and shops that preserve the character of the river so future generations can enjoy its cultural, historic, and recreational benefits. I really urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank my colleague from the eastern part of the great State of Oregon for supporting this bill. He's an acknowledged forest policy expert in his caucus; and if he thinks the bill has merit, I would hope that the rest of his colleagues would, too.