Floor Statements

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we've seen this motion to instruct before; and it calls on the conferees, of which I'm a member, to act, and to do so by February 17, I believe is the date that's been suggested. We would like to act. In fact, we await

an alternative from the Senate. The conference committee has met and, led by our very capable chairman, Dave Camp of Michigan, we've held, I believe, three or four open joint House-Senate Republican-Democrat conference discussions, meetings which hadn't happened around here. Certainly in the last Congress I don't think it ever happened. And we're doing it in the broad daylight, and we've had four of those, and our staffs are having some discussions.

But you've got to go back and understand that the House, under Republican leadership, actually passed a 1-year extension of the unemployment benefits. The House, Republican led, passed a 2-year doc fix, which meant for seniors who are on Medicare that the physicians they rely so much on for their health care, those physicians would continue to be able to afford to see them and not face a 27.4 percent cut in the reimbursement rates.

Now, here's the deal. We passed that, and we funded it, and we did it for 2 years, not 2 months--2 years. We did the payroll tax, as it's called by my friends on the other side of the aisle, payroll tax, middle class tax, working-American tax cut for a full year.

Now, there's a debate about whether that should be offset or not, because our party has said, you know, when we reduce the tax burden on hardworking middle class Americans, families and job creators, we shouldn't have to go raise somebody else's taxes to do that.

Now, the difference on this, if we're talking about Social Security taxes, this is about reducing the amount of money that you and I, Mr. Speaker, you and I pay into Social Security and every working American that pays into Social Security. We're saying, you get to reduce how much you pay into Social Security by this 2 percent.

Now, those of us on this side of the aisle believe that the Social Security trust fund has been raided once too many times by both parties over time, but that should stop. And so if we're going to reduce how much goes into Social Security, we should offset that somehow so that the fund is not drained, and that can be done in a multitude of ways.

But it should be done because otherwise it's less money going into the Social Security trust fund. And I think we'd all have to admit, as the actuaries do, that at the end of the day, the Social Security trust fund is not the best funded trust fund on the planet, and we are going to need to do some work to secure the retirement of future generations in Social Security.

So back to the point here, the House passed all of that. We did a 1- year payroll tax reduction so that hardworking middle class Americans would have tax relief. They'd have that extra money in the pocket, and Lord knows they need it, especially when you see what's happened under this President with energy costs.

I think gasoline was $1.86 a gallon when President Obama took office, and we now go to the pump and it's somewhere between $3-something or $4 and pushing over $4 depending on where you are in America. You've got to have a little extra money just to try and keep up and take your kids to soccer and go to school and go to work. It's hard out there.

So we passed that, a year extension of that, and a full year extension of unemployment for those who have struggled in this horrible economy. There have been 11 recessions since World War II. This is the worst in terms of a recovery from a recession.

When Ronald Reagan was President, we had a horrible recession in the early eighties. We came out of that recession, and if it were at the same pace now as then, you'd create something like 15 million, 16 million new jobs, which means virtually everybody who's unemployed and still uncounted, because a lot of people who have fallen off the unemployment rolls aren't counted, all of them would have jobs if we were growing at the same pace we did when President Reagan was in office and we came out of that recession.

But we're not. The policies really haven't worked. The so-called stimulus that the American taxpayers were told if it would just pass, somehow unemployment would never get above 8 percent. Now, a trillion- plus dollars later with interest, payments that the next generation will get to pay back, we're somehow supposed to celebrate unemployment that's dropped to 8.3.

I'm glad to see the improvement. I'm glad to see the job gains in the private sector. For goodness sakes, my wife and I have been small business owners since 1986 in Oregon. I understand what it's like to sign the front of a payroll check and the back and to grow a business and to deal in good times and in bad.

But the long and short of this is this is a horrible recession, so coming out of this we need that bridge. We put some reforms in unemployment to help people, to lift them up, to give them incentive when they're out there for a year, year and a half, 2 years that maybe we could help them get a better education, encourage that, allow States to encourage that, to help them get a GED, because all of the data shows that if you have a high school diploma, if you have a GED, the odds of you getting hired are much higher.

Then we gave the States the opportunity to do drug screening.

I've heard from a lot of employers in my district out in rural Oregon that say, We do drug tests, and Congressman, you'd be shocked at how many people apply for the job and can't pass the drug test. Well, if you can't pass the drug test, then maybe you really aren't actively seeking work in a way that's legitimate because you can't get hired and yet you're on unemployment, so why don't we do some sort of screen, figure out that problem that you have, and help you then get treatment.

So we said to States, we're going to do away with a Federal decision that's, I don't know, 20, 30, 40 years old that said States don't have this authority. I think States could actually manage this pretty well. That was in the bill the House passed.

So we did all of these things: A 1-year reduction in the taxes people pay into Social Security, the payroll tax deduction, a 2-year fix for your physicians who treat our families on Medicare. Both of my parents, they're gone now, they were on Medicare. My wife's parents, who've also passed away, they were on Medicare. This is an incredibly valuable program. But we passed a 2-year fix for them.

The 1-year for unemployment and the 1-year for the middle class tax cut. All of that went over to the Senate. And this is probably something maybe we can agree on here. What we got back from the other Chamber was a 2-month extension of those things.

Now, some of us stayed around here when the House said, Really? A 2- month, when this is a 1-year and 2-year problem? Why don't you appoint some negotiators? So the Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner, appointed the negotiators through the House side. We hoped that the Senate would appoint negotiators. They didn't. They didn't appoint anybody. In fact, they left town.

Eventually, when nobody showed up after we'd been here for a week, trying to see if we couldn't bring both sides, the House and the Senate together, Republicans and Democrats, work out something more than a 2- month deal, they wouldn't show. And we ended up passing a 2-month extension. Which by the way, Mr. Speaker, puts us right back where we are right now. Which is why we have this motion to instruct from my friends on the other side of the aisle calling on the conference committee to get its work done by the 17th.

So we have worked for that. In fact, the last time this was voted on here it was overwhelming. I think there were only 16 ``no'' votes in the House. So we want to get this done, too.

Now, the Republican conferees have met today, as we've done over the last week or two. The Democrat Senate conferees, by the way, they had a retreat today down at the Nationals ballpark in some meeting room. There was a planning retreat. Both parties have had these in the House. But it just sort of caused a pause in the effort because the Democrats were all off at a policy retreat today from the Senate, so we weren't able to accomplish much today.

But we hope to get something from the Senate because, you see, they go into the conference and they had this 2-month effort against our 1- year. So we can't negotiate against ourselves. So we're waiting for a proposal back from the Senate, which we hope to get soon. If we do, tomorrow we'll meet at 10 o'clock. Republicans, Democrats,

House and Senate to try and work this through. We want to get this done. The American people deserve to have us get this done. We're working on a way to do that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on both sides.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to just address a couple of points.

First of all, my dear friend from New Jersey, when he talks about the Congress bailing out the banks, may want

to talk to his colleague from New York since, I think, he voted for TARP in that process. Anyway, he may want to have that discussion right there.

You two are pretty close together. You can kind of work that deal out.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

In reclaiming my time, I don't disagree with that. I didn't support some of those bailouts either, although I did vote to make sure their financial system didn't collapse. My point is we faced some tough problems. We actually got over the hump in a bipartisan way, and we can do that here.

The interesting thing is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are the ones who, I believe, in most cases voted against the long-term payroll tax reduction the Republicans put forward; they voted against the 1-year extension of unemployment and the 2-year doc fix.

Wait a minute. I've got a couple of other things I was going to share with you first.

So that's what the House passed; right?

What we got back from the Senate was the 2-month short-term that we're all upset about. Because I agree with you. Having been a small business owner, there were a couple of things that were bad about that 2-month extension, which we actually, in the end, tweaked and fixed. One is just doing the payroll--trying to get the formulas, the calculations, the software in your payroll system. All that had to be changed for employers, and we actually got that fixed at the end, which is a good thing.

Going forward, we need long-term predictability and certainty, and that's what Republicans thought and Speaker Boehner thought in the beginning, which was, why don't we stop kicking these cans down the road on short-terms and get away from these problems that were such an issue last year that riled the markets, as one of our colleagues said earlier. Why were we forced into this mess with short-term continuing resolutions that time and again we came right up to the brink on? Why? Because, under Speaker Pelosi, my friends on the other side of the aisle did not produce a budget nor did they fund the agencies for the full fiscal year.

No, I won't, not at this moment. Don't leave. I'll get to you.

I've got to finish this because this is the problem with the dysfunctional nature of what happened here in Congress 2 years ago, which then, when we took the majority in January of last year, we inherited--no budget--just like our colleagues on other side have not produced a budget in more than 1,000 days. They still haven't produced a budget. If you and I were on a board of directors of some nonprofit and if we didn't do a budget every year, they'd rightfully say that you're being malfeasant, that you're not doing your job.

So the House passed a budget. The House, under Speaker Boehner, also funded the government. That wasn't easy, but we only have a majority on a good day in a third of the process, so we had to work with our friends on the other side and with the President downtown. At the end of the day, though, we funded the government for the rest of the fiscal year.

You talk about anxiety in the markets and all that. By the way, in having brought some stability back to government, in having seriously said we have to pay for spending and cuts by cutting spending, the market now is at the highest level it has been since the crash in '08 or thereabouts. So it is coming back. Now, that doesn't help the average Joe out there on the street necessarily or people trying to find work, and there has been a lot of effort to try and deal with that, but we have a long way to go. I agree with my colleague that none of us is happy at 8.3. None of us was really happy at 10 or, in parts of my district, at 16 percent unemployment, so we have a long way to go.

I would yield just briefly.

Yes, sir.

I'm going to reclaim my time because you actually have time, and you might want to get some yielded on that.

The point is, the discussion we are having right now is on how to pay for it. That is the discussion we are having with the Senate, and there is disagreement. But there should be no misunderstanding that it was the Republican House that put forward the 1-year extension of the payroll tax cut for these same working-class folks. It was the Republican House that put forward a 2-year fix for the docs so they had certainty in their medical practices and could continue to see seniors on Medicare. And it was the House that passed the 1-year extension on unemployment. We just think the ``spend it even when you don't have it'' days are over.

This country's job outlook is affected because of this country's government's failure to cut spending. We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. There is nothing that has a longer chance of living in America than a government program created in Washington. We have got to do a better job. It's not easy. The hardest thing you can do in this job is to tell somebody ``no.'' But you know what, for too many times, too many people in this Chamber over the years have only said ``yes'' to spending and creating new programs. That has to change.

So we did have a debate about increasing the debt ceiling. And for the first time we said, It's not going to be that automatic Democratic Dick Gephardt rule that said, when you pass a budget, you raise the debt ceiling automatically. We thought it was time to have the debate. As painful as it was, as difficult as it was to say, We have to offset this increase in deficit by cutting spending, I know, as a small business owner, our small business would have been broke if it had been run as this government runs.

Now there are good times and bad times in government, and you can work around some level of borrowing and some level of deficit. But it isn't far from this porch out here to the debt crisis Greece has and Portugal has and the European countries have and are facing right now. We have time to fix that; and that's why we're saying rather than cut the funding going into Social Security and not replace it with something else is a mistake. That is what we're saying.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time remains on each side, Mr. Speaker?

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

I would like to just point out a couple of things so we get on the same terms here. I was actually here until the 23rd day of December, as were the Republicans appointed to be conferees. I don't know that Leader Pelosi had appointed Democrat conferees at that point. I don't think in that process she had yet, although she did somewhere thereafter. Maybe on the 23rd, but not in between. The Senate wasn't here. And even though we tried to get them to appoint conferees prior to that, they did not. So on the 23rd is when we finally said, It's over. They weren't coming back, and we ended up agreeing to the 2-month extension, which leaves us here.

Now, my friend from New Jersey talked about this should have been done by January 17. Well, there's only one problem with that: the Senate didn't come back into session until the 24th of January. The conferees could have met during that period. In fact, we would have met during that period; but, frankly, there were Members--probably from both parties and both Houses--who were not available to meet. And I know for sure in the Senate, some of the conferees were not available to meet because they weren't exactly in the country. So that wasn't going to happened until we were both in session.

I believe the State of the Union was Tuesday night, the 24th. I believe that's the day the Senate came back. I may be off by a day. But that's why this thing didn't start up. Which, by the way, is why in December we begged the Senate, Why don't we work this out December 23? Why don't we work this out December 22, 21, 19, 18, go on back. We were ready and we stayed, and they chose not to. They had a big vote and said, We're going to do 2 months. We'll see you at the end of January. So that is where we are.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I believe it was.

Reclaiming my time, that's cute and clever. You and I know that's not exactly the same issue. And I would assert that if a different President, a different party had done that, you might share the same concerns that some of us have. We were not officially in recess, but they were not in town, either. Both Chambers open and close every 3 days. That's how it's been done in the recent past.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to set the record straight.

First of all, my colleague who just spoke, it was his party that raided Medicare as part of the President's health care legislation by $500 billion. That's a fact.

Now, when he says that my party ended Medicare, that is not a fact. And, in fact, PolitiFact, the independent arbiter of what we all say here to see if it's truthful, said that the notion that that is true is the biggest untruth of the year. They gave it that award because they knew that it wasn't true. And I know it's not true.

Now, I'm trying to figure out what my friend, and he is my friend, means when he said that this isn't somehow raiding Social Security's trust fund because the payroll tax that is at issue here that is being reduced by 2 percent is the payment that, if it were made, would go into Social Security. That's the payroll tax.

I won't yield at this moment. You wouldn't yield to me. I'll let you use your folks' time.

Now that is being offset. And by the way, the offsets that we are talking about as part of this legislation almost in every case received bipartisan support in this House, and sometimes overwhelming bipartisan support. And many of those offsets were actually recommended by the President of the United States, Mr. Obama, as part of a different package as things that he thought made sense.

And so we said, you know what? Maybe there's some common ground here. The President recommended some of these offsets as ways to reduce government spending and pay for other things as part of the supercommittee process. And so if he thought it was okay there, maybe we can finally find some common ground, and we'll say you like that there, and so we'll use that here so we don't increase the deficit, don't hurt jobs, and don't leave our kids with an unimaginable debt.

So Republicans are the ones who've said, We're not going to let you raid Social Security. We'll reduce the payroll tax payment, the Social Security tax payment, but we're going to offset it so that the fund is not any further reduced. I think that's an important principle that I would hope we would all share.

And so I just say that it was the President's health care plan that took $500 billion out of Medicare. I don't know, I'm a fan of Medicare. I've seen what it does for seniors. I saw what it did for my parents and my wife's parents. I want to make sure it's preserved for the future, just like I want to make sure Social Security is as well. That's why we shouldn't rob the fund.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, what Americans really want is a job. I don't think there's any disagreement between us that that should be our goal. That's why as part of what the Republicans put in the bill that went to the Senate is a plan to auction off spectrum that would generate upwards of 700,000 jobs, according to some studies--700,000 jobs. It will spur innovation and spur technology. That's in this bill that we're fighting for because this is a sector that can grow good-paying, family jobs that can keep America in the lead on innovation and technology.

So the legislation, the American Jobs Act, which I authored, is in this legislation. It's a part of this bill. It would generate net $16.7 billion to help pay for extending unemployment or to help pay the Social Security trust fund so that it doesn't have to be depleted.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

How much time does each side have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

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

I think this has been a good, thoughtful, and lively debate because I think we've been able to show each other, through you, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the House did its work.

House Republicans put forward a proposal to extend unemployment benefits for a full year, and we paid for it. We put forward a proposal to give working middle class taxpayers a reduction in the amount they pay into Social Security, but we backfilled that money so that Social Security's trust fund was not depleted. And we said to our physicians out there who take care of our seniors that they would have certainty and not face a 27.4 percent cut in their reimbursement rates under Medicare and that they would have that certainty for 2 full years. So the facts are clear what the House passed.

We also included in this legislation to try and drive new job creation in the high-tech sector by auctioning off spectrum that would generate $16.7 billion and upwards of 700,000 jobs. That's a high-end number, but let's say it's half that. There are estimates all over the place. But a few hundred thousand jobs would be a really great thing, especially in technology and innovation and everything that would come from that. That's in this bill.

What we got back from the Senate was 2 months--2 months--2 months-- and a failure to even come to the table. So the Republican conferees from the House have been willing to meet anytime, anywhere. And, in fact, under Chairman Camp's leadership, we have met in public with our counterparts.

Frankly, we've had some good discussions across the table. I want to make that clear, as well. Between the Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, those of us on the conference committee I think you would say, even though we may have disagreements, we've had good discussions. And now we need to get the work done.

In order to get the work done, we have to have some alternative proposals from the Senate, which hopefully we're going to get, maybe even tonight. I think that would be helpful because then we would know what their position is, because this is kind of a different sort of conference. We had a year bill; they had a 2-month bill, and most of that 2-month bill became law. So it's been kind of an awkward conference for the Senate to try and figure out how to do this, and the House has a full year or 2-year extension, depending upon the items at issue here.

So we'll meet again tomorrow at 10 o'clock, is my understanding, in conference, either in private or in public. I don't know. That will be up to the chairman. But in any case, I don't care when or where. I'm ready. Mr. Reed from New York who spoke earlier is ready, and my other conferees are ready. We were ready in December to get this done, we really were, and we still are. And we're committed to the working American people and those who are trying and struggling to find jobs to make sure they have that unemployment insurance. They deserve that, they need that, and we're committed to providing that.

So, Mr. Speaker, on that note, I don't think there will be any objection on this floor to approving the motion to instruct conferees to get their work done by the 17th. I'll certainly support it, as I have and nearly everyone in the House has.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the entire Republican delegation from Oregon, I extend a very warm welcome to the newest representative from the Beaver State, Suzanne Bonamici. She cuts a similar path to the people's House as the one I traveled, having served in Salem as a State representative and a State senator, and as my colleague from Eugene points out, is a fellow Duck, having also earned a journalism degree, as I did, from the University of Oregon.

She joins a congressional delegation that has a long history of embracing what we call the Oregon way, to set aside our differences and pursue solutions to take care of the State's most pressing priorities.

From Congressmen DeFazio, Schrader, and Blumenauer to Senators Wyden and Merkley are on the floor today, we have mounted a number of bipartisan efforts in the Congress. So we are delighted to have you as part of this team. I think I can speak for the entire delegation in saying we look forward to working with you and continuing in the great service to the State of Oregon. Thank you, and welcome to the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, let me make a couple of points about this motion to instruct, which I oppose.

Section 2123, which is the issue here, allows up to 10 States per year to apply for waivers to test innovative ideas to help people get a job, to help people get back to work, so it's only up to 10 States. And waiver programs would have to be cost neutral, rigorously evaluated, and then we could understand the policies.

Look, I think the folks at home in my great State of Oregon are just as compassionate, if not more so, than what happens here in Washington. I think they can be creative, too, in helping.

And, in fact, in 2011, Oregon launched its version under a waiver of the National Career Readiness Certificate program. Now, what that did was certify 10,760 work-ready individuals in the State that they have the appropriate math, reading, and other skills necessary to get back and contribute to the workforce.

Now, that hiring tool brought nearly 400 businesses, communities, and workers together and then simplified the job-search hiring process. These are the kinds of innovative ideas that we could use to actually help people get a job.

This is a horrible economy. We've had 11 recessions since World War II. This is the worst one in terms of coming out of it. So the policies that have been in place the last couple of years haven't work.

The American people were promised if we spent a trillion dollars we don't have, including interest on the stimulus, unemployment wouldn't go above 8 percent; and yet here we are, record unemployment, record deficits. Trillion-dollar year after year after year deficits under the Obama administration, and people still out of work, highest poverty level since the great anti-poverty campaigns began. This has to change. We have to get people back to work.

One of the issues that we're going to deal with in the conference committee, I hope, you want to do something about jobs, then let's stop this Boiler MACT rule from going into place. The EPA Boiler MACT rule threatens to cripple American manufacturers. We've lost more jobs there since back to, I think, World War II; and this rule by EPA would cut another 200,000 jobs.

So let's roll back the job-killing regulations. Let's get Americans back to work, and let's leave creativity to the States to help us find better ways to take care of those who are unemployed.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity to honor Ms. Carrie Novick on the occasion of her retirement. Since 1990, Carrie has served as the airport manager for Roberts Field, Redmond Municipal Airport in Redmond, Oregon. She will leave her position next Tuesday after nearly 22 years of exemplary public service to the citizens of Redmond and central Oregon.

During her tenure as airport manager, Carrie has transformed a sleepy municipal airfield into a first class regional transportation hub. Nearly two years ago, Carrie completed an airport terminal expansion project that more than doubled the size of the existing airport to 136,000 square feet, tripled its operations capacity to 45 flights per day, and allowed for more than 200,000 passengers per year to pass through its gates. For nearly ten years, Carrie worked passionately to make this fantastic project a reality.

Carrie's tenacity and good stewardship of public resources modernized the facility, increased flight availability, and improved passenger safety and services. Carrie fulfilled her vision to transform the Redmond Airport into a regional economic engine powering tourism, trade, and industry, all while improving the quality of life for area residents.

Carrie has always been eager to share her vision and passion for her work. She always made an effort to meet me whenever I was flying to or departing from the airport to brief me on the latest airport developments, offer her counsel on aviation policy, or just share a cup of coffee with me at the gate. I will miss her candor, quick wit, and indomitable spirit. I'm proud to call her my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Ms. Carrie Novick for her outstanding contributions to the city of Redmond and the communities of central Oregon, and to wish her well upon her retirement. Carrie has given her time and efforts selflessly to the region and her service is worthy of the highest praise. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have waited long enough for this Congress to act to create jobs. This legislation does that. It does that through the Jump-Starting Opportunity With Broadband Spectrum Act of 2011. There is no reason to delay this bill any further.

This unleashes spectrum, both licensed and unlicensed, that when put into service will unleash new technologies, new innovations. And the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission said this part of the bill we're debating today could create as many as 700,000 new jobs. Other estimates say between 300,000 and 700,000 American jobs.

It generates upwards of $16 billion for companies who want to buy this broadband and pay the taxpayers for it because it is America's spectrum. And it does something that the Democrats, when they were in charge of the House for 4 years, failed to do: It makes this spectrum available, and it begins the process of building out an interoperable public safety broadband network as called for by the 9/11 Commission.

Now, this legislation didn't just drop out of the sky. It was thoughtfully and creatively crafted, and it finds the right balances. Its provisions were improved as the result of input and counsel from five separate public hearings we held, 11 months of negotiations, and discussions with Members of both sides of the aisle, the FCC, and the NTIA. But at some point the American people say stop talking and get it done, and that's what this legislation does as part of this bigger bill.

Hardworking middle class taxpayers want transparency and accountability; they don't want a blank check to anybody. So this legislation has the proper protections for the taxpayers. It builds out the public safety network. It creates 300,000 to 700,000 American jobs. Our economy needs the help, Americans need the jobs, and we need to generate revenue for the American taxpayer in a productive way, as this does. This legislation does all of these things and does them well. I urge support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 60 years of outstanding public and volunteer service of my fellow Oregonian and friend, Mr. Bob Nickelsen. I would like to celebrate and pay tribute to Bob's loyal service to my hometown of Hood River, Oregon and to pay tribute to a man who embodies the selfless spirit of service to others.

In 1951, Bob first joined the West Side Fire Department as a volunteer firefighter. In 1961, Bob was appointed fire chief of the department, a position that he held until 1980. During his tenure as fire chief, the West Side Fire Department expanded its services by erecting a second firehouse, which now bears his name. Under Bob's guidance, the fire department also began dispatching first responder personnel to aid emergency medical calls with the Hood River Ambulance Service.

For the past 30 years, he has also served as an elected member of the West Side Fire District Board of Directors. To this day, Bob continues to put himself in harm's way as a volunteer fire fighter. His leadership allowed this small rural volunteer fire district to stay in step with current developments in the fire sciences and provide the professional level of support that the community so richly deserves.

Mr. Speaker, Bob Nickelsen's civic responsibilities do not end at the firehouse doors. He was a commissioner for the Port of Hood River for over 15 years and has served on numerous local agricultural boards and committees. He was previously recognized as the Hood River Valley's ``Orchardist of the Year.'' As a leader within the local farming community, Bob has contributed much of his time and effort to the economic development of Hood River and the Columbia Gorge.

On December 10, the West Side Fire Department will once again honor Bob with a banquet on his behalf I invite my colleagues to join me in praising Bob Nickelsen for 60 remarkable years of dedicated public service, his numerous contributions to his community, and for his outstanding character as a citizen of Hood River.

Theodore Roosevelt once said that ``the first requisite for a good citizen is that he should be willing and able to pull his own weight.'' Bob continues to far surpass this noble standard.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and share with you and my colleagues the story of Mr. Bill Hoyt and his life-long efforts to support agriculture and ranching, which are so important to jobs and the economy in rural Oregon. Over the past two years, Bill has done a tremendous job serving as the president of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association. Later this week, Bill's term as president will come to an end. Before he hands over the reins I would like to pay tribute to his steadfast leadership.

Prior to serving as president of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, Bill served as president of the Douglas County Livestock Association and as president of the Oregon Polled Hereford Association. On top of his duties with the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, he serves on the board of the Oregon Forage and Grassland Council and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. In 2009, the Oregon Agribusiness Council recognized Bill's service to Oregon's agricultural and ranching community by presenting him with the 2009 Voice of the Industry award.

During his tenure as president of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, Bill has worked to promote and protect the interests of ranchers throughout Oregon. Bill has made a concerted effort to engage the general public about issues facing ranchers. He has spent many hours and miles traveling to meetings with rotary clubs, chambers of commerce and the environmental community, telling the story of Oregon's cattle ranchers, whose $700 million industry provides jobs throughout rural Oregon. His efforts to educate the public and build relationships with other interested groups culminated in the passage of the Livestock Compensation and Wolf Co-Existence Act during Oregon's 2011 legislative session. This precedent-setting legislation goes beyond what other states have done to compensate producers for livestock loss by allowing local county-level authorities to address compensation for and deterrence of livestock losses.

Bill was raised on a beef ranch in Montana. After high school, he earned degrees in both political science and education. Bill served his country in the U.S. Air Force for four years before moving on to teach high school history. In 1977, Bill began working as the operations manager for his family ranch in Montana. In 1979, Bill expanded the operation to include the ranch from his mother's family in Oregon. Bill and his wife Sharon now own and operate the Hawley Land and Cattle Company in Oregon with Bill's father and younger brother.

The ranch that Bill operates has been in the family for 159 years and Bill makes an effort to implement cutting edge stewardship practices for forage and livestock production. Bill and Sharon have diversified their operation over the years and now raise sheep, goats and beef cattle and sell grass-fed lamb and beef direct to markets and top-rated restaurants in Oregon and Washington. Through changing techniques, diversification and advocacy on behalf of the industry he loves, Bill hopes that agriculture and the livestock industries will continue to flourish in Oregon 150 years from now.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Bill Hoyt, who has served so ably as president of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 27 World War II veterans from Oregon who will be visiting their memorial this Friday in Washington, D.C. through Honor Flight of Eastern Oregon. On behalf of a grateful State and country, we welcome these heroes to the Nation's capital.

The veterans on this flight from Oregon are: Raymond Kurshner, U.S. Air Force; Lelus Jack Baucum, U.S. Army; Frank M. Chuk, U.S. Army; Audrey J. Johnson, U.S. Army; Albert J. Phillips, U.S. Army, and Harold M. Tucker, U.S. Army; Duane Gilchrist, U.S. Army Air Corps; Truman D. Logan, U.S. Army Air Corps, and Victor E. Mattila, U.S. Army Air Corps; Rex E. Esch, U.S. Coast Guard; Hattie H. Kelley, U.S. Marines; Floyd E. Kirby, U.S. Marines, and Dwight Patit Riggs, Jr., U.S. Marines; Lawrence Bird, U.S. Navy; Phoebe Helen DeGree, U.S. Navy; Anthony Galluzzo, U.S. Navy; Robert P. Maley, U.S. Navy; Lorene F. Mattila, U.S. Navy; Richard J. Nelson, U.S. Navy; Robert Leo Olson, U.S. Navy; Paul R. Scandlyn, U.S. Navy, and George N. Fogg, U.S. Navy/Air Force.

These 22 heroes join more than 63,000 veterans from across the country who, since 2005, have journeyed from their home States to Washington, D.C. to reflect at the memorials built in honor of our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, each of us is humbled by the courage of these soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who put themselves in harm's way for our country and way of life. As a Nation, we can never fully repay the debt of gratitude owed to them for their honor, commitment, and sacrifice in defense of the freedoms we have today.

My colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Eastern Oregon for their exemplary dedication and service to this great country.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1343) to return unused or reclaimed funds made available for broadband awards in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to the Treasury of the United States, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record.

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

First of all, I want to thank my colleague from New Hampshire, Charlie Bass, who has really worked hard on this issue to bring about greater accountability and oversight of how American taxpayer dollars are being allocated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, especially to make sure that when the money comes back that it's really clear with these agencies that it goes back to pay down the deficit and doesn't end up in some sort of slush fund, and my colleague Mr. Bass has played a real leadership role in both crafting this legislation and making sure it comes to the House at this time.

Mr. Speaker, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act allocated approximately $7 billion in taxpayer

money to two broadband-related grant and loan programs. One was administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the other by the Rural Utility Service. The wisdom of creating these programs and whether the money should have been better targeted to unserved households has been the subject of ongoing debate. There is, however, general consensus on the importance of oversight, as evidenced by the bill, H.R. 1343, unanimously passed out of subcommittee and the full Energy and Commerce Committee by voice vote. I, for one, want to make sure these programs do not produce some sort of Solyndra problem. I want to thank our ranking members, Waxman and Eshoo, and their staffs for working with us on this bill. We incorporated a number of their suggestions, and the bill is better because of it.

Because the NTIA and RUS have already awarded all $7 billion, the bill does not automatically revoke any money. To do so would not only be unfair to the grant and loan recipients that are abiding by their award terms, it would also likely cost the government more in legal fees than it would save.

The vast majority of the money is yet to be spent by the awardees, however. So, what H.R. 1343 does is clarify the responsibility of the NTIA and the RUS going forward to terminate failed or failing grants and loans and to return to the U.S. Treasury any rescinded or relinquished funds. The bill also improves oversight of the broadband programs. Among other things, the bill requires the NTIA and the RUS either to terminate an award within 30 days of receiving information from their respective Inspectors General or the Comptroller General regarding material in noncompliance with award terms, or to explain to Congress why they don't. It would require the NTIA and RUS to deobligate and return to the Treasury funds from terminated awards as well as return unused funds from any relinquished awards. Finally, it would require award recipients to provide an accounting of funds received but not yet expended, if the NTIA or RUS terminate those awards.

The number of NTIA and RUS awards that have already been returned, and the fact that more than 90 percent of the money the ARRA allocated for broadband still remains obligated but unspent, makes this legislation all the more important. Of 233 NTIA awards worth approximately $3.94 billion, recipients had only spent $480 million through June of this year, despite claims that the stimulus act generally would focus on ``shovel ready'' projects. Clearly, that hasn't happened here. Four of the 233 awards worth approximately $40 million have already been rescinded or returned. The RUS has issued 320 awards, consisting of $2.3 billion in grants and $87 million leveraged for $1.2 billion in loans. Yet recipients had only spent $250 million by the middle of July, and 28 of the 320 awards, worth $123 million in grants and $35 million in loans, had already been returned or rescinded.

Some of my colleagues, as they did in committee, may say that the legislation is really unnecessary. I would disagree. The Department of Commerce Inspector General, the Department of Agriculture Inspector General, and the Government Accountability Office have all flagged concerns with the programs and identified them as high risk, including in testimony at the Communications and Technology Subcommittee's February 10, 2011, hearing.

A number of statutory shortcomings further demonstrate the need for this legislation. For example, existing law leaves the NTIA and the RUS too much discretion in deciding whether to deobligate and return funds from failed or failing awards. Section 6001(i)(4) of the stimulus law establishing the NTIA program stipulates only that the Assistant Secretary ``may'' deobligate awards in cases of waste, fraud, or insufficient performance. The statutory language provides even less guidance to the RUS, remaining silent on the issue of deobligation and return of funds. Commerce Assistant Secretary Strickling agreed in an April 2011 hearing that the bill would create more certainty. That was our effort.

While Dodd-Frank added rescission provisions to the ARRA, it is unclear whether the terms ``withdraw'' and ``recapture'' in Dodd-Frank have the same meaning as ``deobligate'' in section 6001 of the ARRA, leaving unclear how the Dodd-Frank provisions would be interpreted and applied to the broadband grants.

When Congress uses billions of dollars to subsidize broadband in competition with the private sector, especially when 95 percent of the country already has access, it bears all the more responsibility to police those dollars. For this and all the reasons that I have mentioned, I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire for his leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, September 30, 2011.

Hon. Fred Upton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Upton: Thank you for the opportunity to

review the text of H.R. 1343, to return unused or reclaimed

funds made available for broadband awards in the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to the Treasury of the

United States, for provisions of the bill that fall within

the jurisdiction of this Committee.

Knowing of your interest in expediting this legislation and

in maintaining the continued consultation between our

Committees on these matters, I agree to discharge H.R. 1343

from further consideration by the Committee on Agriculture. I

do so with the understanding that by discharging the bill,

the Committee on Agriculture does not waive any future

jurisdictional claim over this or similar matters. In

addition, in the event a conference with the Senate is

requested on this matter, the Committee on Agriculture

reserves the right to seek appointment of conferees, if it

should become necessary.

I ask that you insert a copy of our exchange of letters

into the Congressional Record during consideration of this

measure on the House floor.

Thank you for your courtesy in this matter and I look

forward to continued cooperation between our respective

committees.

Sincerely,

Frank D. Lucas,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the author of the legislation, a very valuable member of our Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), who chairs our very important Oversight Subcommittee and who has done extraordinary work in looking into some of these programs, not necessarily on the broadband side here, but certainly on the energy loan side, where there has been a problem.

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

I want to thank my colleague from Florida who has made some terrific comments regarding this legislation about the importance of oversight. I know my colleague from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) has been very keenly involved in the oversight efforts as well.

Let me just say, as chair of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, that we will be doing oversight on how this program is working. We hear some reports that there have been problems getting access to fiber because of the earthquake in Japan that may have slowed build out. We understand that some of the smaller companies may have run into all kinds of problems working their way through rights-of-way issues that have delayed the build out of getting this broadband build out into many of our communities, especially those who don't have broadband today.

So I think it's incumbent upon us, and I won't presume to speak for the minority, but I assume they would agree as well, we need to keep an eye on this just to see how is it working and what impediments are we running into, and are we going to see this broadband actually get built out as it was envisioned. The grants have been issued. The money is obligated, hasn't been spent.

So it looks to me like we have two tasks here. One is to make sure we get what we're paying for as the American taxpayer, and the money that isn't going to get spent comes back or, if there's any kind of fraud developed, all that money we can recover will come back and that there is a very surefire method, without question, that it comes back to the Treasury; and that, also, to take a look at what are the impediments to building out. I know we run into it where I am at, that we do have problems sometimes getting these permits, getting through the various regulations that really impede our opportunity.

I would encourage Members on both sides of the House to approve this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to touch on a couple of things. First of all, you can tell we're into October and Halloween is coming because all the scare tactics are out and on display.

We heard several things from the last speaker, and since I'm from the State of Oregon, I want to point out, he mentioned that the biggest polluter of mercury in Oregon is the cement kiln. Why is that? Because we only have one coal plant and it's being closed. So that's it.

The cement factory in Durkee, Oregon, which is in my district, a county of 16,000, 3 years ahead of any of these rules invested $20 million in the latest, most advanced technology to remove their pollutants, reduce their emissions, $20 million, they reduced their emissions by 90 percent, and what this rule would do, the MACT rule under consideration here that we're trying to delay and bring common sense to, it would put them out of business, because they're already using the maximum achievable control technology that is available in the world. They've reduced their emissions by over 90 percent on a consistent basis. There isn't technology available to go further, because the limestone found behind this plant that's been in operation for, I don't know, 30 or 40 years, happens to have a little higher level of mercury.

The Clean Air Act would allow the EPA to create a subcategory. They chose not to. The Clean Air Act says you can't force a company to do more substitution, and yet that's what would have to occur here--except there's no limestone anywhere nearby.

According to the EPA's own ``Roadmap for Mercury'' study in 2006, 83 percent of the mercury deposited in the U.S. originates from international sources. This is the State of Oregon. Guess what's out here somewhere: It would be China. We get it in from the atmosphere. So what we're doing here is trading our jobs to China, buying our cement there, they don't have these rules, we get their pollution, we lose, and you put a plant out of business.

You want to talk about jobs? There are 109 individuals who work at the Ash Grove Cement Company in Durkee, Oregon. The Teamsters wrote to me back in March, imploring me to do everything I could to ensure these jobs:

``As you are aware, this cement plant is important to the community in Durkee, and also, their product is vital to rebuilding and building our infrastructure. Economic stability and jobs should be the number one priority for all of us,'' Lynn Lehrbach, Representative, Joint Council of Teamsters No. 37.

The entire Oregon delegation recently signed a letter to the EPA, advocating Ash Grove for their Clean Air Excellence Award. In that letter, it reads:

``Ash Grove's commitment to proactively reduce mercury emissions at its Durkee, Oregon, plant 3 years ahead of the new EPA rules taking effect is commendable. This type of action by Ash Grove's and their ultimate success in making meaningful reductions is a model that others should emulate.''

Yet if these rules were to go into effect, they can't meet the new rules because the new rules would make them reduce their emissions by 98.4 percent. Now, this is the biggest employer in Baker County with direct and indirect jobs of some 654 in the area. They have been a good corporate citizen. They care about the people of Baker County and the surrounding areas. They are working day and night to reduce their emissions, and it's simply not achievable. Baker already has 10.7 percent unemployment. You take this away, and think what that unemployment rate will be. They have reduced their emissions. The emissions we're getting--83 percent according to the EPA--are already coming in from elsewhere, deposited in the United States from international sources, both natural and remitted.

Look, we're just trying to find some balance here. We're saying the Clean Air Act set the maximum achievable control technology, but that can't be met here. It doesn't work. They're already using the activated carbon injection filtering system. They've already

spent $20 million to achieve their goals. We're just saying we care about the jobs, too. We care about the air, and we care about the jobs.

So when Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy testified before our committee, I asked her, I'm concerned about these health problems. Would you provide for me the effects in Baker County in Oregon that you've demonstrated to come up with these data points.

Twenty-seven days later, we still have no response.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to save the jobs and to bring responsible management to air control and quality improvement.

Joint Council of

Teamsters No. 37,

Portland, Oregon, March 31, 2011.

Hon. Greg Walden,

U.S. Representative, Oregon District 2, Rayburn House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Greg Walden,

U.S. Representative, Oregon District 2,

Medford, OR.

Dear Representative Walden: The current economic conditions

are affecting most of our Teamster Industries. One in

particular is our Durkee Cement Plant in your district.

The EPA/Oregon DEQ is attempting to shut the Durkee Cement

Plant down for not meeting emission standards. The Durkee

Plant spent $20 million to retrofit their plant to meet the

EPA's requirement. They came close, but no horseshoe.

As you are aware, this cement plant is important to the

community in Durkee, and also, their product is vital to

rebuilding and building our infrastructure. Economic

stability and jobs should be the No. 1 priority for all of

us.

We are asking for your help to keep the Durkee Cement Plant

in operation. Thank you for your attention to this most

important issue.

If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

Lynn R. Lehrbach,

Representative.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 27 World War II veterans from Oregon who will be visiting their memorial this Friday in Washington, D.C. through Honor Flight of Oregon. On behalf of a grateful state and country, we welcome these heroes to the nation's capital.

The veterans on this flight from Oregon are: William Raupp, U.S. Air Force; Russell Blower, U.S. Army; William Brown, U.S. Army; Glenn Butler, U.S. Army; Earl Davis, U.S. Army; Howard Heinz, U.S. Army; LeRoy Hopkins, U.S. Army; David Kyle, U.S. Army; Harold ``Bud'' Loucks, U.S. Army; Robert Rampy, U.S. Army; Harrison ``Robbie'' Robbins, U.S. Army; Anthony DelCollo, U.S. Army Air Corps; Leo Kraft, U.S. Marine Corps; Joseph Lavallee, U.S. Marine Corps; Charlotte ``Sharkey'' Meyer, U.S. Marine Corps; Michael Pershem, U.S. Marine Corps; Francis Welsh, U.S. Marine Corps; Donald Ayriss, U.S. Navy; John Brazie, U.S. Navy; Jack Buckley, U.S. Navy; Kenneth Deacon, U.S. Navy; Keith Frey, U.S. Navy; Melvin Leroy Kerber, U.S. Navy; Margaret Lutz, U.S. Navy; James Petralba, U.S. Navy; Allan Westphal, U.S. Navy; Frank Smith, U.S. Navy.

These 27 heroes join more than 63,000 veterans from across the country who, since 2005, have journeyed from their home states to Washington, D.C. to reflect at the memorials built in honor of our nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, each of us is humbled by the courage of these soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who put themselves in harm's way for our country and way of life. As a nation, we can never fully repay the debt of gratitude owed to them for their honor, commitment, and sacrifice in defense of the freedoms we have today.

My colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their exemplary dedication and service to this great country. I especially want to recognize and thank Gail Yakopatz for her tireless work as president of Honor Flight of Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday, September 26, 2011, and further when the House adjourns on that day, it shall meet at 11 a.m. on Thursday, September 29, 2011.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 47 World War II veterans from Oregon who will be visiting their memorial this Friday in Washington, DC through Honor Flight of Eastern Oregon and the newly created Honor Flight of Portland, Oregon. On behalf of a grateful state and country, we welcome these heroes to the Nation's Capital.

The veterans on this flight from Oregon are: Elmer Beickel, U.S. Navy; Hayes Bickford, U.S. Navy; John Cleveland, U.S. Navy; Charles Decker, U.S. Navy; Leon Devereaux, Jr., U.S. Navy; Melvin Elder, U.S. Navy; Robert Ervin, U.S. Navy; Roice Fulleton, U.S. Navy; Robert Heisey, U.S. Navy; Dale Herbert, U.S. Navy; James Ogle, U.S. Navy; Edward Rose, Jr., U.S. Navy; Willard Rudd, U.S. Navy; Cameron Seitz, U.S. Navy; Russell Williams, U.S. Navy; Glen Winkler, U.S. Navy; Peter McNab, U.S. Navy; Henry Campuzano, U.S. Army; Vyvyan Clift, U.S. Army; James Dorgan, U.S. Army; Neil Farnham, U.S. Army; Howard Heimbuch, U.S. Army; James Howard, U.S. Army; Charles Keim, U.S. Army; Gerald Mattox, U.S. Army; William McCluhan, U.S. Army; Elliott Preble, U.S. Army; Erwin Regan, U.S. Army; James Sehorn, U.S. Army; Darrell Thompson, U.S. Army; Donald Thompson, U.S. Army; Clayton Vincent, U.S. Army; Patsy Seaman, U.S. Women's Army Corps; Bernard Anderson, U.S. Army Air Forces; Lee Berry, Jr., U.S. Army Air Forces; T. Carl Juhl, U.S. Army Air Forces; Jack Lewis, U.S. Army Air Forces; Robert Marble, U.S. Army Air Forces; Frank Ramirez, U.S. Army Air Forces; Walter Seaman, U.S. Army Air Forces; Gilbert Sharp, U.S. Army Air Forces; Dewey Thomas, U.S. Army Air Forces; Delbert Stafford, U.S. Army Air Forces; Donald Foelker, U.S. Marine Corps; Charles Porter, Jr., U.S. Coast Guard; Wayne Carlson, U.S. Merchant Marine; Paul Kirk, U.S. Merchant Marine.

These 47 heroes join more than 63,000 veterans from across the country who, since 2005, have journeyed from their home states to Washington, DC to reflect at the memorials built in honor of our nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, each of us is humbled by the courage of these soldiers, sailors, airmen, mariners and one Marine who put themselves in harm's way for our country and way of life. As a nation, we can never fully repay the debt of gratitude owed to them for their honor, commitment, and sacrifice in defense of the freedoms we have today. I will be hosting a special forum on Capitol Hill on Friday for these highly distinguished Americans, and I'm very eager to thank them all in person.

My colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Eastern Oregon and Portland, Oregon for their exemplary dedication and service to this great country. I especially want to recognize Dick Tobiason, a U.S. Army veteran, and the Bend Heroes Foundation whose tireless work will result in over 100 WWII veterans from Oregon visiting the memorials and U.S. Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Colonel James C. Miller on the occasion of his retirement from a long and outstanding career in the United States Air Force and the Oregon Air National Guard.

Colonel Miller began his career in the Air Force through the ROTC program at Central Washington University in 1984. Early in his Air Force career he qualified as a pilot in the T-37 and the F-15 Eagle aircraft and served honorably throughout the United States. In 1999 he became a member of the Oregon Air National Guard as an instructor pilot in the Fighter wing at Kingsley Field, Oregon, and has since served in numerous jobs of increasing responsibility at Kingsley Field. Throughout his career in the Air Force, he became an accomplished pilot, exceeding 4,300 flying hours in the F-15 Eagle.

Colonel Miller most recently served as the Commander of the 173rd Fighter Wing at Kingsley Field. During that tour of duty his exceptional leadership and tenacious dedication to duty to both the State of Oregon and the United States of America resulted in an outstanding set of accomplishments.

He commanded over 800 airmen, oversaw over $20 million annually in operating costs, and orchestrated over 44,000 Class A accident-free flying hours. Under his leadership the wing accepted 19 new aircraft and converted the aircraft to new engines in only five months, while maintaining the highest mission capable rate in the Air Force.

Colonel Miller's visionary leadership was instrumental in the establishment of Kingsley Field as the Air National Guard's premier F- 15 training unit and the Wing's selection as the sole F-15 fighter training unit in the U.S. Air Force.

Colonel Miller served his community as well as his military mission. He spearheaded the efforts of the most successful series of Combined Federal Campaigns in Kingsley Field history, raising more than $500,000 for local non-profit agencies. He re-invigorated the Kingsley Field Military Affairs Committee, directly involving local civic and Chamber of Commerce leaders in supporting Kingsley Airmen. He created the ``Pilot for a Day'' program, allowing local underprivileged and challenged youth to experience what it's like to be an Air Force pilot.

Throughout his long career, Colonel Miller served his country and his state honorably, and, on behalf of the people of Oregon's Second District, I want to thank him for his service.