Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and express gratitude to Colby Marshall, a very special individual who recently traded in his public service in the Congress for public service in his community and dedication to his family's half-century old ranching business in eastern Oregon.

Colby was born and raised in the rural high desert area of Burns, Oregon, near Riley, where his parents Gary and Georgia still operate the Broken Circle Ranch. Colby recently

returned ``home on the range'' after 8 years of selfless service to the people of Oregon's Second District. His transition to the ranching business continues a proud family tradition five generations in the making.

In 1993, Colby graduated from Burns High School and went on to attend college at Ambassador University in east Texas, where he met his beautiful bride of 15 years, Shelley, whose family has ranched in and around Pendleton and been involved with the world-famous Pendleton Round Up Rodeo and Happy Canyon Pageantry Show for 100 years. Together, Colby and Shelley have two wonderfully charming children: seven-year- old daughter Hadley and nearly-four-year-old son Wyatt.

Colby graduated Magna Cum Laude with a bachelor of science in agriculture business management in 1999 from Eastern Oregon University. He worked several jobs to put himself and Shelley through school: he drove a mail carrier truck, tutored his peers, worked at the local grain co-op, and fought wildfires with the elite La Grande Hotshots. He still found time to rise to president of the student body. Little wonder he was honored with the Outstanding Agriculture Graduating Senior Award and Outstanding Student Leadership Award.

Colby got his first taste of Congress as an intern for Chairman Bob Smith, my predecessor in the Second District, on the Committee on Agriculture. Post-college, he worked for Pendleton Grain Growers before serving as Eastern Oregon University's alumni and government relations director. While there, he oversaw the formation of an alumni board of directors and helped lobby successfully for $32 million to construct the EOU Science Center, a state-federal-private shared enterprise.

In 2002, I made the very wise decision to hire Colby. He remained in my office for the next 8 years. Colby spent 2 years managing my central Oregon office in Bend before moving with Shelley to Washington, DC to manage natural resources and energy policy.

Colby helped shepherd key bipartisan bills through the legislative process, including the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Reauthorization, and the Mount Hood Stewardship Legacy Act. Colby managed a package of bills aimed at improving watersheds and water supply--an exceedingly important and delicate issue in the arid lands of eastern Oregon. The Oregon Water Resources Management Act contained four different acts-- all became law with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The last major act Colby handled was the Healthy Forests Restoration Amendments Act, which would give federal foresters the tools they need to bring our sick national forests back to health and put people back to work in the forests again. This bipartisan legislation is vital to the rural West. I am hopeful we will carry across the finish line the good work that Colby started.

Colby returned to eastern Oregon in January 2008 to open my office in La Grande--the first ever congressional office on the east side of the State. In July 2009, Colby moved to Bend to once more manage the central Oregon office while continuing to oversee the operation in La Grande.

In March 2010, Colby transitioned out of my office and returned to the family land and livestock business. He is now a manager of the Broken Circle Company, the holding company for Broken Circle Ranch. He and his family live on the ranch 27 miles outside of Burns. His daughter, Hadley, attends the same one-room school that Colby and his mother both attended.

My colleagues, please join me today in paying tribute to Colby and his family as they turn to their new form of service. His unfailing dedication and faithful service will not soon be forgotten by myself or the many people whose lives he enriched through his outstanding work. While I will miss his counsel, I look forward to his close friendship for many years to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments and contributions of a great American, a life-long Oregonian and logger, Mike Wiedeman, of Enterprise, Oregon. Mike has been a leader and an innovator for over four decades in one of Oregon's most important and historic industries: the logging industry.

Tomorrow I will have the privilege of tipping my hat to Mike as he concludes his service as the president of the American Loggers Council at its 16th annual meeting in Pendleton, Oregon. The American Loggers Council is a coalition of 30 state logging associations from throughout the United States. I can personally attest to the effectiveness of the American Loggers Council, Mike and his predecessors at bringing to Congress's attention the issues, concerns and challenges facing their industry and the health of our forests and rural forested communities.

Madam Speaker, Mike Wiedeman also has a long and distinguished record of service to his state association, the Associated Oregon Loggers. He was recognized as the association's Logger of the Year in 1990. He served as the association's president from 1997-1998 and was one of the founding board members of the association's Friends of Paul Bunyan Foundation, a philanthropic organization that has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to education and public service organizations. He was one of the first organizers and leaders of the Log A Load For Kids program to raise funds for Oregon hospitals that specialize in the treatment of children with special needs. And finally, Mike currently serves as the chairman of the association's Wallowa County chapter.

After beginning his career in the coastal town of Powers, Oregon, Mike has logged from northern California to Alaska and back to Oregon. While in Alaska he met his bride Sandy who was working in a logging camp. They have three children they adore and whom I have had the pleasure of meeting and are now experiencing the joy of being grandparents to two grandkids.

For the past 32 years Mike has been a partner and owner of BTO Logging, Inc. in Enterprise, Oregon. This small, rural community surrounded by federal forest lands, not unlike many in Oregon's second congressional district, is arguably one of the most beautiful places in my state, if not in the entire country. The timbered lands in the surrounding Wallowa-Whitman National Forest suffer from some of the worst forest health issues of any in the intermountain West. Consistent with his human nature in assessing a serious problem, Mike saw a highly productive opportunity to utilize the dead and dying overstocked forest stands to generate renewable energy. As a member and subsequent chairman of the Enterprise School Board, Mike recently led the charge to build and install a woody biomass heating system at the local school. This system now utilizes wood material removed from forest health projects on nearby forests.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Wiedeman's logging operation utilizes a system that allows logs to be removed by fully suspending them on up to nearly 4,000 feet of cable above the ground protecting the soil and remaining plant life. His method, which is considered one of the most dangerous in logging, allows him to treat forest stands in difficult terrain, often flying logs over deep and normally inaccessible canyons.

Madam Speaker, on the eve of completing his term as president of the American Loggers Council, I would like our colleagues to join me in thanking Mike Wiedeman for his exemplary service to his community, the industry that he loves and the associations that represent it both here in the nation's capital and in the state of Oregon. It's my honor to call Mike a good friend, and to represent him in the U.S. Congress. Mike is a hard charging and dedicated individual and the kind of guy you're lucky to find as a neighbor. He has been quoted as saying, ``My whole philosophy in life is you can't get anywhere standing still.'' And I can assure you, Madam Speaker, Mike is not standing still.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to share with you my admiration for a man who has deeply affected my life, and the lives of countless Oregonians, Denny Jones. Denny celebrated his 100th birthday yesterday. Denny crossing the century mark is a very special occasion, but more importantly is what he has done with those 100 years. Denny was my father's close friend when they served together in the Oregon legislature in the 1970s. More than a decade later, I had the privilege of serving with him in the Oregon legislature. As House Majority Leader, I frequently sought Denny's advice and counsel and like so many others, relied on his deep sense of right and wrong, his clear commonsense philosophy and his thorough knowledge of water and western agriculture. He is a close friend and mentor, the

kind you want in this public life who will tell you when he thinks you're right and when he is convinced you are wrong. He sets the example for all of us to follow.

Madam Speaker, Denny Jones came from humble beginnings to distinguish himself as a successful Oregon cattle rancher and 26-year state legislator. Denzil Eugene Jones was born on a wheat ranch between Heppner and Ione in Morrow County, Oregon on September 21, 1910. His mother passed away when he was five. Denny's father remarried, but his stepmother made him and his brother sleep outside in a tent, even in the winter. The family moved frequently through the years, as they made their way to Montana, back to Wheeler County, and then on to Crook County, where he finished 10th grade in Prineville.

Honest labor and hard work have marked Denny's life. Learning how to ride horses from his father, he spent a short time as a jockey, traveling by boxcar from Vancouver and Victoria, B.C., to Tijuana, Mexico. But when his 106 pounds exceeded the weight limit, his three- year contract was cut short and he was never paid for the job he did. He then worked for a sheep outfit, moving to Juntura in Malheur County when he was 18. There, he earned $50 a month plus room. After that, ranching became his focus throughout the 1930s. In 1939, his relative, Jim Jones, offered him a 10-year opportunity to share in running a cattle ranch. At the end of those years, he signed over his share of the cattle as a down payment on his ranch. Two years later, Denny owned it free and clear with 400 head of cattle. Life was particularly hard in the 1940s, when he broke his leg and dislocated his knee when he was thrown from a horse. He later broke his back slipping on a frozen cow pie.

Ranch life continued until the 1970s, when the family moved to Ontario, Oregon. One year after the move, the local business community asked him to run for Oregon's 60th District House seat. Denny was elected in 1972, and served for 13 terms, the second-longest serving member of the Oregon Legislature. During those 26 years, he served on the Emergency Board, the Committees on Agriculture, Transportation, and Education, and was co-chair of the Joint Committee on Ways and Means. He brought his own brand of eastern Oregon conservatism to Salem and quickly earned a reputation as a fiscal hawk with a kind heart. The experience he gained as a high desert cattle rancher served him and Oregon taxpayers well.

It was the values he learned in his youth to which he credits his success in the Legislature. ``It's the most important thing that you keep your word and that you're honest with everybody,'' he said.

Madam Speaker, Denny truly has done a lot of good in his 100 years. In addition to serving in the Oregon Legislature, Denny became a charter member of the Public Lands Council; was director, lobbyist, and two-time president of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association; a member of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the United States of America, and the Freemasons; received the Malheur County Cattleman of the Year Award and was the Malheur County Livestock Association's president; received the Harney County Livestock Association Citizenship Award; received the Ontario Jaycees' Citizenship Award; was president of the Malheur Pioneer Association; was Director of the Pacific International Livestock Exposition; and was a board member of the Malheur County Budget Board, Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Juntura School District, the Malheur County Juvenile Council, and the Agri- Business Council of Oregon. And, at the age of 97 he was still considered one of the best ropers at Fred Otley's branding.

Colleagues, Denny Jones is loved and revered in his community and in our State. He is the type of individual who understands the potential of this great Nation and has worked tirelessly to build a State and country that lives up to its promise. In celebration of his 100 years, there will be a display honoring Denny and his many accomplishments. Long after the display is gone, Denny's accomplishments and contributions will remain. I am honored to call him my good friend, and invite all of you to join me in honoring his 100th birthday.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and express sincere gratitude to Valerie Henry, who after 13 years of work on Capitol Hill, including seven years of service to the people of Oregon's Second Congressional District, is departing this institution today to become, as she puts it, full-time CEO of her household as she continues to raise her two wonderful children.

Valerie has become very well-respected in the Congress as a sharp-as- a-tack policy aide in health care, education, taxes, budget issues, and telecommunications. But don't just take my word for it. In 2005, the National Rural Health Association bestowed on her the NRHA Legislative Staff Award in recognition of her ongoing commitments to improving the health care of rural Americans.

Valerie was born and raised just across the Potomac River in Alexandria, Virginia. She learned the value of representative democracy from her mom (Virginia Franco) who served for 30 years as the deputy registrar of voters for the city of Alexandria and oversaw the administration of hundreds of local, State and Federal elections.

After graduating from her beloved Virginia Tech in 1997, she began her career on Capitol Hill as an intern for her home State senator and quintessential statesman, Senator John Warner. That internship eventually translated into a full-time job. She worked for Senator Warner through the historic impeachment proceedings of President Bill Clinton.

While in Senator Warner's office, she also met her future husband, Patrick Henry, who worked for Senator Warner in his committee office. Pat remains a dedicated public servant, serving now as Special Agent in the U.S. Secret Service, and is one heck of a good guy.

In 1999, Valerie joined the staff of Idaho Senator Mike Crapo shortly after he was sworn in as United States Senator. It was there, Madam Speaker, that Valerie says she developed her love for policy analysis and an appreciation for the impact that the Federal government has on the lives of individuals.

A brief stint downtown with a health law and lobbying firm confirmed for Valerie that Capitol Hill was where her talents could best be put to use. So in April 2003, Valerie returned to the Hill as a legislative assistant in my Washington, D.C. office, where she faithfully served the people of Oregon's Second Congressional District for the next seven years.

Through those years, Madam Speaker, Valerie provided essential guidance to me on several historic legislative measures, including the Medicare Modernization Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

I and my staff celebrated when Valerie and Pat welcomed their first child in 2005--a daughter, Carlson ``Carly'' Jean Henry, named after Valerie, and again in 2009 when their son, Patrick ``Trip'' Timothy Henry III, was born. Carly and Trip are great kids, and fortunate to have such loving parents.

Madam Speaker, it is these precious legacies that have lured Valerie away from our beloved House on Capitol Hill to her home in Falls Church, Virginia.

I speak for all of Oregon's Second District, and this historic institution, when I say ``thank you'' to Valerie Henry for her selfless and valuable service over these years.

Madam Speaker, I will greatly miss Valerie's highly informed counsel and wonderfully infectious personality. And I know the staff will miss the camaraderie that Valerie brought to the office every single day. While we might prefer not to lose her invaluable professional contributions, we are comforted knowing that our friend will never be that far away.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and express gratitude to Erica Chalkley, who dedicated herself in my Washington, D.C. office to serving the people of Oregon's Second Congressional District for nearly three years. In that time, she distinguished herself as a talented young woman who dedicates herself unswervingly to her career, colleagues, and family.

Madam Speaker, it's tough enough to lose the only other Duck in my Washington, D.C. office. But much more than that, Erica brought an enthusiasm and positive attitude every day that will be sorely missed. Countless Oregonians have walked through the doors of my Washington, D.C. office and been greeted first by Erica, who made them feel at home during their visit. I received many exuberant ``thank you'' notes over the past few years that specifically mentioned how grateful they were for Erica's hospitality and charm.

In a sense, what they were really saying is that Erica made their experience in our nation's capital even better. That's no small feat. In a city with so many memorable museums, landmarks, and attractions, it says quite a bit that her service left such a lasting impression during what for many is a very special and personally fulfilling trip to Washington, D.C.

My colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee would certainly appreciate this example of Erica's hard work and dedication to the team. When the health care bill was brought up for a markup in the committee last summer, my senior policy advisor on health care issues was out of the office on maternity leave. So Erica stepped in to pinch hit for, essentially, her first Major League at-bat.

Madam Speaker, that marathon markup on the 2,032-page bill was Erica's very first hands-on experience in the committee process. Without missing a beat, she dove headfirst into the complicated new policy implications of this massive piece of legislation. Put in a similar position, many others might have been intimidated by the pressure and greatly elevated stakes. She held more than her own, even helping me successfully attach several amendments important to rural Oregon to the committee version of the bill.

As I'm sure you can imagine, Madam Speaker, it is bittersweet to lose a member of the team like Erica. On the one hand, it is never easy to replace someone who brings to the table an outgoing personality, strong work ethic, and commitment to public service. But on the other hand, it's impossible not to be happy for her as she enters what will no doubt be a very exciting stage of her life.

While Erica is leaving Capitol Hill, she is entering a private professional organization where she will continue to remain deeply involved in public policy work, something that I know is a priority for Erica.

Beyond her professional growth, Erica recently became engaged to Danny Fernandez, a fellow Oregonian and former staffer for Senator Gordon Smith. They plan to marry next year, and I couldn't be any happier for the both of them--even if Danny hails from the wrong side of Oregon's Civil War. In all seriousness, they are two wonderfully talented individuals, and I wish them the very best as they go down the very exciting path before them.

Erica also became an aunt for the first time just a couple of short weeks ago. It must have been near torture for Erica to wait a week before heading down to Georgia to see the new addition to her family, but her pride in her sister and baby Seth has been evident ever since she announced the happy news.

Madam Speaker, I've already noted how constituents have showered praise upon Erica for her work. Just as importantly, I'd wager that if you polled my staff and the professionals who regularly come and go through my office, they would tell you that having the privilege to interact with Erica makes every day that much better. The world could always use a few more people like that. I can't think of many higher compliments.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, you may be familiar with the Angels in Adoption program that provides Members of Congress an opportunity to recognize individuals, couples or organizations that have made and extraordinary contribution on behalf of children in need of adoption and foster care. This year I am proud to select Brian Morton as the recipient of this year's Angels in Adoption Award for Oregon's Second Congressional District.

Madam Speaker, the people of southern Oregon hold a deep appreciation for Brian Morton. As a well-known and respected news anchor at Medford's ABC television affiliate, KDRV, Brian has developed a special program dedicated to raising awareness about the community need to find adoptive and foster families.

During the monthly feature, ``Wednesday's Child,'' Brian and KDRV produce personalized segments on children who are eligible for adoption. Normally, potential adoptive families have little more than one photo and a minimal amount of text description on children available for adoption. But in ``Wednesday's Child,'' the children are featured in poignant everyday activities where their stories are shared in a sensitive and heartfelt manner.

Madam Speaker, the response to ``Wednesday's Child'' has been so overwhelmingly positive that potential families from all over the United States have sought to adopt the featured children. In some cases, relatives, who were previously unknown, were able to get in contact with the children.

Because of Brian's dedication, adoptive children throughout southern Oregon now have a better possibility of finding loving families and a brighter future. Yet Brian's dedication to the cause of adoptive children does not wane when the cameras are turned off. With his wife, Laurie, they have remained involved in the community at large. Brian has served on the board of directors at CASA, the Court Appointed Special Advocates of Jackson County.

The work of Brian, Laurie, and Angels in Adoption helps raise public awareness about the need for adoptive and foster families. Every child deserves an opportunity to have a loving and supportive family, and Brian and Laurie are making sure that occurs one family at a time. For that, Madam Speaker, they deserve our deep appreciation.

It is an honor to have the privilege to recognize Brian Morton before the United States House of Representatives. I salute Brian for his selfless deeds and great acts of charity, and believe that all Americans can learn from his benevolence and commitment to adoption.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with you the deep appreciation that I and the people of the Klamath Basin hold for Dave Solem, the manager of the Klamath Irrigation District.

Those who know Dave admire his considerable knowledge, skill, and leadership abilities. You can always rely on Dave to have the informed perspective and good judgment to find solutions that make a difference.

It is with mixed emotions that I join my fellow Oregonians in bidding Dave farewell as he leaves the Klamath Basin for a new career. After 28 years of managing the Klamath Irrigation District, Dave is leaving to become the general manager of the South Columbia Basin Irrigation District in Pasco, Washington. Dave's departure is a great loss for those of us who hold Klamath Basin agriculture close to our hearts.

Madam Speaker, you may be familiar with the vast agricultural bounty of the Klamath Basin. Known worldwide for its superior food and forage crops, the success of the basin depends on the conservation and delivery of water. Dave's contributions to irrigated agriculture have been unmatched.

As the general manager of the Klamath Irrigation District, Dave earned a stellar reputation as a leader, organizer, and team player, overseeing all aspects of operation and maintenance of a complex irrigation and drainage system. The Klamath Irrigation District is a major enterprise consisting of irrigation and drainage systems that span 400 miles in length.

Dave, a professional in every sense of the word, managed major water projects during his tenure, including the $14 million A-Canal Fish Screen and Headworks Construction, the $900,000 A-Canal Tunnel Invert Replacement, the $700,000 Miller Hill Pumping Plant Replacement, and the $350,000 Adams Siphon Construction.

Madam Speaker, Dave knows the value of water and has spent a career managing that precious resource for all uses. Klamath Irrigation District, under Dave's leadership, has been committed to ongoing efforts to conserve water, including several miles of canal piping, the automated telemetric control system of all of the head gates and major canals, and, most recently, the initiation of a GIS mapping and monitoring system for the district.

Dave has served as director of the Klamath Water Users Association, including two terms as president. He was frequently the voice of irrigated agriculture in state and federal forums. He distinguished himself in his time at the Klamath Water Users Association by receiving their Leadership Award three times, and was praised for the strong roles he took in the Klamath River Fisheries Task Force and his participation in addressing issues related to water supply, water quality, herbicide application, tribal trust, the environment, and electric power.

Dave is no stranger to Congress, as he has made frequent trips to Washington, D.C. to meet with members of Congress, Senators, and staff members as well as testify in hearings. He has met with high level agency and administration officials to help them understand that intricacies of water in the Klamath Basin.

I invite my colleagues to join me in wishing Dave and his wife, Julie, Godspeed as they pursue new horizons. Dave will be sorely missed in the Klamath Basin, as he is a man of extraordinary character and honesty who has served the irrigators in the Klamath Reclamation Project exceptionally well.

Dave may be leaving the area, but the results of his great work will remain, and he will always be our friend.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the great Oregon tribal leader, Chief Nelson Wallulatum of the Wasco Tribe, who passed away on Sunday, June 13, 2010. He was laid to rest in a traditional Wasco ceremony at 4:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 15, before the Sun rose that day. He had led his people, and served on the Tribal Council of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, for more than 50 years. Chief Wallulatum was 84 years old.

Nelson Wallulatum became chief of the Wasco Tribe in 1959. Historically, the Wascos are a tribe of the Columbia River, particularly in the Gorge area, and in modern times they are one of the three tribes of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. Pursuant to the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs constitution, as chief of one of the three tribes, in 1959 he also became a lifetime tribal council member of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, a duty he fulfilled with enthusiasm, dignity and intelligence.

As the Wasco chief and a tribal council member, he was steadily and deeply involved in the governance of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs during a period of great history and change in Indian affairs. He was an unparalleled expert in the Warm Springs constitution and the 1855 Tribes of Middle Oregon Treaty with the United States, and fought to preserve and strengthen the sovereign authority of the Warm Springs Tribes across a time that moved from federal policies of Indian termination to today's well-established self-determination and tribal- federal mutual government-to-government relations. As you might imagine, Chief Wallulatum's leadership tasks brought him on many occasions to Washington, DC, to address both the administration and the Congress on the issues of his people and all Indian people. Over the many years, he was well known and respected by members of Oregon's congressional delegation, as well as by congressional leaders in national Indian issues and policy, before whom he often testified.

Chief Wallulatum was instrumental in the return of 60,000 acres to the Warm Springs Reservation, securing and developing treaty-protected fishing access sites along the Columbia River to replace those inundated by hydroelectric reservoirs, and the settlement and safeguarding of the Confederated Warm Springs Tribes' water rights.

In addition to being a guiding hand in the governance of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, as chief of the Wasco Tribe, Nelson Wallulatum was a principal keeper of the history, culture and traditions of the Wasco people. His authority in these matters was sought by Congress, and was recognized by tribes and their organizations, at whose gatherings he frequently conducted prayers and blessings.

Finally, it must be noted that, throughout conducting the affairs of his nation and his people, Chief Wallulatum did so with good humor, wisdom, and kindness. He was a gentleman of strength and dignity, and a historic leader for the Wasco people and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. He will be missed.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank you and our colleagues for joining me in tribute to Chief Wallulatum.

Madam Speaker, I rise on the occasion of Oregon's inaugural Honor Flight journey of 24 of Oregon World War II and Korean War era veterans to visit their memorials here in Washington, DC. On behalf of a grateful congressional delegation, state, and country, I welcome these heroes to our nation's capital where I am honored to host a special recognition event for them.

The veterans on this Honor Flight are World War II veterans: Jim Cate, U.S. Marine Corps; Don Daugherty, U.S. Navy; Russell ``Gunner'' Day, U.S. Navy; Al Grant, U.S. Navy; Bob Haskin, U.S. Army Air Corps; Hank Henson, U.S. Army Air Corps; Don Huebsch, U.S. Marine Corps; Anne Laraia, U.S. Air Force; Rocco Laraia Jr., U.S. Navy, Army, Air Force; Ed LeRoy, U.S. Navy; Dennis ``Mac'' McManus Sr., U.S. Army; Paul Miller, U.S. Army; Richard Miller, U.S. Army; Ed Morehead, U.S. Army Air Corps; Marvin ``Bud'' Morss, U.S. Air Force; Al E. Rogers, U.S. Navy; Ken Shideler, U.S. Army; Samuel ``Smitty'' Smith, U.S. Navy; Bill Spencer, U.S. Marine Corps; Don Spencer Sr., U.S. Army Air Corps; George ``Vince'' Stauffer, U.S. Coast Guard; Vyrl ``Ed'' Sweeney, U.S. Army; and Ervin ``Van'' Van Blaricom, U.S. Marine Corps.

Madam Speaker, these 24 veterans from Oregon join more than 35,000 veterans from across the country who, since 2005, have traveled to our nation's capital to visit and reflect at memorials built here in their honor. This Honor Flight was made possible thanks to generous donations and contributions from the public to honor these American heroes.

We truly can never repay the debt we owe these soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen who put themselves in harm's way to protect us and our liberty and freedom. The sacrifices made by these outstanding citizens--and the families they left behind--are truly incredible. Without their honor, courage, commitment, and sacrifice, we would not enjoy the freedoms we cherish today.

Please join me in thanking these Oregon veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their dedication, commitment, and service to our great nation. May God bless them and may God Bless America.

I want to thank my colleague from California for his comments.

Madam Speaker, I guess the question I would have is: Is there anything in our rules that would prohibit the Clerk from just doing this without legislation, without a resolution? Has anybody just asked the Clerk to do this?

Do you know?

It would seem to me that the Clerk works for the House, and if the majority party just wanted to ask the Clerk to put a link on the Web site, it should be able to be done. It shouldn't be a problem.

Besides that, I want to get to the real issue here, which is: Where is the budget?

You know, taxpayers every April 15 are required by law to file their taxes, and this Congress is supposed to come up with a budget. If you go back to 1974, which is when the Budget and Impoundment Control Act was passed, every year, the House has had at least a vote on a budget-- not always on time, but at least you've always had a vote. We don't even have a budget. So we're spending time here arguing about whether the Clerk should link to the CBO site when we ought to be having a real debate on America's future and on a budget.

When I was home over this break, I talked to a lot of Oregonians who are fearful and angry about the runaway deficit spending. They understand the implications on their kids and on their grandkids. They don't believe Washington is listening, and I think this is an example of that. We're having a debate on something which, I think, the Clerk could probably do of her own volition. Certainly, the Speaker could ask her to, and I don't think anybody would object. It just doesn't make sense to me. So you don't have an appropriations bill moving. You don't have a budget coming. We can name post offices and we can honor sports teams, but we can't address the very problem that is costing us jobs in America.

I was a small business owner for nearly 22 years. The pressure from this government on the back of small business is killing jobs, and it is keeping people away from creating jobs. The high taxes, the high regulations, the uncertainty in the marketplace are costing the economy and jobs.

Mr. Speaker, if we talk about national security and intersecting those who do harm, the first thing we ought to talk about in this Congress at this time is where's the budget. As the budget chairman has said, if you can't budget, you can't govern. That was 4 years ago.

Taxpayers have to pay their taxes every April 15. Congress was supposed to have a budget April 15. Not since 1974 when the Budget Act was written has the House failed to even consider a budget.

And the budget that we need to consider needs to deal with deficit spending, deficits of $1.4 trillion, $1.6 trillion, and a trillion dollars every year added to the Nation's debt and to our kids' and grandkids' future. The budget being put forward by the President doubles the Nation's debt in 5 years and triples it in 10. This is unsustainable. We will look like Greece. We will look like Spain.

The budget-busting deficit that's being created is horrible for our kids and grandkids. It will not be good for this country's security. It is awful for our children's future. Let's get a budget that reduces wasteful Washington spending.

Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of the House told the National Association of Counties a while back that Congress needed to pass the health care bill so we could find out what's in it. Well, we are finding out now.

The Chief Actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is the independent scorekeeper of legislation like this. Their report that they just issued said half of all seniors in America who are on Medicare Advantage plans, half, are going to lose that coverage under the bill that was signed into law.

Well, that's a big problem for seniors in Oregon. Oregon has had one of the highest penetration rates in the United States of seniors who wanted Medicare Advantage and signed up for it. I was out in Ontario, Oregon, not long ago, and the seniors there raised their hands and said, ``Why are they taking away the Medicare Advantage I have?'' We now know under this independent evaluation half of them will lose that care, 38,000 seniors in my district alone.

We need to repeal and replace this law that was jammed through this Congress, Mr. Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I was a small business owner with my wife for nearly 22 years and I served on a hospital board, and I support reforming the health care system. In fact, I have offered up legislation to do that and supported other bills, but the way that this process is being mismanaged and misrun today is not the way to do health care reform. There isn't the transparency the American people deserve and that is now being denied by those in charge.

We are reading in the press that the Senate bill, with all of its barnacles on it, may pass this House without ever having a stand-up ``yes'' or ``no'' vote. That is outrageous.

And what does that bill do and what do these bills do? They whack Medicare $500 billion. Thirty-eight thousand seniors in my district run the risk of losing the Medicare Advantage policies that they have.

This is not the way to do health care reform. You should scrap the bill and start over on a bipartisan basis.

I had two amendments to deal with rural health care issues adopted unanimously in the Energy and Commerce Committee, both of which, after the committee passed the bill out of the committee itself, were stripped out somewhere between the committee and the House floor, and the Democrats wouldn't even let me offer those amendments on the House floor again.

Stop this process. Let's do it right.

Well, it's that season. The Christmas season is upon us. And I sort of felt like I must have been at the Nutcracker, because I haven't seen that much spin since the sugar plum fairies in the Nutcracker.

Let's talk about jobs and the recovery. Let's talk about fact and fact. When the American Recovery Act, the stimulus, was raced through this floor on a totally partisan move, we were told to expect that with the stimulus, as you can see here in this chart to my left, that this is what would happen to unemployment.

Now, remember, when the year started and President Obama took office and the Democrats claimed control of the Senate with a 60-seat margin, that can overrun any filibuster--60 seats--and a 40-seat margin here in the House means they are unparalleled in their power and control and ability to pass anything they want anytime they want and sign it into law.

When the year started, unemployment was at 7.6 percent in January of this year. High, by national standards. No doubt about it. Highest it had been in many years. We were headed into a recession. No doubt about it. We'd been through unprecedented times. But we were told if the American taxpayers would just go out and loan the Congress, actually it's not the American taxpayers yet, it's our kids and grandkids that get to pay it back later. Right now we're going to the Chinese and the Japanese and the oil-producing countries and saying, Can you loan us the money? But that's the dirty little secret here. If you'll loan us that $800 billion, whatever it was, here's where unemployment will end up. It's going to just barely go up and come out at about 8 percent. Oh, and by the way, we were told by some of the Democrats who were all for this that if we didn't pass the stimulus into law, that unemployment would go clear up to here.

Now let's look at what really happened. Many of us on the Republican side of the aisle said, That isn't going to work. Just throwing more taxpayer money you don't have, borrowing more money from foreign countries that already have loaned us more than they want to, and throwing that out in rapid succession may create a few jobs, but the long-term implications are dangerous for the future of this country because of debt. And you're not going to create that many jobs. Sure, in a year or two you can't help but create jobs, and we'll talk about some of those because a lot of them are created right here in the Washington, D.C. area, not out in real America, and are not sustainable. But we were told if we pass it, here's where we'll be with unemployment, at about 8 percent. If we don't pass it, gosh, we'll end up almost at 9 percent.

So they rushed it through here. The stimulus rushed through here. And now what are we at? We're over 10 percent unemployment. That's the red line. You see, some of us on the Republican side of the aisle actually come out of the private sector. We actually have signed the fronts of payroll checks like I have and my wife has. For 21, almost 22 years we were small business owners. We took over a very small family business, got it out of debt, on its feet and we grew it in 20 years. We employed 15 to 17 people in small communities in Oregon. I know what it's like to be a small business owner and comply with the heavy hand of government regulation and the burdens of taxation and all the things that you all in government think ought to happen because you know best how to create jobs. What a farce that is.

So we see what happens when you throw money at a problem: You waste it, and you don't create jobs. You see, Republicans did have an alternative. My friends and colleagues who were on the floor here earlier said that we had no alternative. Well, they know that's really not the case at all. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office evaluated both of our plans and said the Republican alternative would create twice the jobs at half the cost.

Now, there are a lot of smart Christmas shoppers out there. Boys and girls, men and women, come closer. There are a lot of smart shoppers out there who look for bargains, and they say, If I could get twice the product at half the cost, that's a bargain. Unless you're the Democrat majority in the House and the Senate and downtown, then you want to spend twice as much and get half as much. You want to tell the American people, Pass my plan and I'll get you no more than maybe 9 percent unemployment, somewhere in the upper 8s. Actually, no, they said it wouldn't go above 8. That's right. They said it wouldn't go above 8.

Whoa. It was at 7.6 and now it's at over 10. And let's talk about what happened to that stimulus. So how did they spend the money? There was an interesting report out in The Hill--$6 million borrowed from your kids and grandkids, actually borrowed from the Chinese, the Japanese, the oil-producing countries that buy our debt, and our kids and grandkids will get to repay this with interest. Six million of those dollars went to now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's pollster.

I'm not making this up, folks. This is not a fairy tale. Two firms run by Mark Penn, current Secretary of State Clinton's former Presidential campaign pollster, received a total of $5.97 million in taxpayer funds from the Democrat stimulus that you heard created all these jobs, solved all these problems. Burson-Marsteller, a public relations and communications firm run by

Penn, received the funding to advertise the analog to digital television switch in 2008, reportedly saving three jobs at the firm. Three jobs. $6 million. Of the $5.97 million, $2.8 million was also allocated to Penn's campaign polling firm, Penn, Schoen and Berland. At the end of the day, taxpayers spent $6 million to save three jobs. $6 million, three jobs.

How many of you go home to your constituents and say, in a town meeting, Can you loan me $6 million, because I've got a brilliant way to create three jobs for Hillary Clinton's pollsters and public relations people to tell people in America that, by the way, you are going to switch from analog to digital on your TV which, by the way, they were very capable of figuring out on their own. We didn't need to spend the nearly $2 billion that was spent in the overall conversion effort to educate the public. They got it. They're smart enough to figure this stuff out. And if they're not, they've got 12-year-old kids that can figure out how to make the DVD not blink and the VCR not blink. But anyway, $6 million, two jobs. Two million on a dance theater.

Oh, this one you'll like. Los Angeles Times. The Minneapolis city council recently voted to use Federal stimulus funds to convert a vacant, 99-year-old theater into a center of dance instead of funding a solar energy panel manufacturing plant that would have created seven times as many jobs. Now my friends who were talking before me talked about the green energy jobs. Well, here was a perfect opportunity, with your Federal tax dollars, to create green energy jobs and the Minneapolis city council decided to put it into a dance theater instead. The dance project will cost $2 million and create 48 permanent jobs, according to the city.

Interestingly, in the spring newsletter, the theater estimated that completing the project would actually only create 26 full-time and part-time permanent jobs. So in their spring newsletter, they said 26. Now it's reported at 48. The solar energy panel manufacturing plant, meanwhile, that was in competition for that stimulus money received less than $300,000, compared with the dance theater's $2 million, yet the plant would have created more than 360 jobs by 2011. But they couldn't do the right, what is it, minuet? They couldn't spin just correctly. They weren't, I don't know, maybe they didn't have the right tutu on or the right shoes or something. They only had $300,000. The dance theater got $2 million.

Americans could have created 360 jobs in Minneapolis. They made that decision. Councilman Paul Ostroff was the single councilman voting against the Center of Dance saying ``the theater wasn't creating enough jobs to qualify for stimulus money, whereas, the solar energy plant clearly fit the President's goal. It was a home run. It was a home run.''

I told you a week or so ago about the $95,000 being spent to study Viking-era pollen in Iceland. Viking-era pollen in Iceland, $95,000. Having been a small business person I've helped create jobs, and I've watched every nickel. You do that when you're in real America. Not back here. When you're in real America and creating real jobs, and you're trying to get to something we call positive cash flow and maintain that, you watch every nickel. You don't let $95,000 go out the door to study Viking-era pollen in Iceland. You make sure that you invest every cent correctly and effectively. You don't just spend money rampantly. You don't throw it out the door. It's too hard to earn. And you're trying to grow your business. You're trying to expand your business.

That's what the American way is about. My friend earlier talked as if the whole American recovery, the whole economy and the greatness that we have, originated because of some Federal programs in the Great Depression, the WPA the CCC. And certainly they left a nice footprint behind with some of our fantastic park lodges and buildings. And they did some wonderful work. That is not the essence of America's economy. It doesn't start and stop right here in these two wells, the Well of the House or there at the leadership tables. We are not the innovators and creators of jobs. That is out there in America.

Ladies and gentlemen, in the real world, when somebody has an idea, they get a couple of people together who want to believe in that idea, and they put their money forward. They don't go take it from somebody like the tax man or woman does. They put their money at risk. And they say, if we do it a little better, a little smarter, we can be successful. We can create jobs. We can benefit from that. And by the way, it's our money at risk as private citizens. So, we're going to be real careful how that gets spent. We're not going to waste it on lavish offices and all these things. That's the real America out there.

You know what I'm talking about, small businessmen and women. You go behind the counter and behind the wall, and they have a broken-down chair and a computer that's sort of wired together that they try and keep operating, and they have paper piled around. I have been in your offices. I had one of your offices. I can show you the pictures and the piles. I know what it's like to work day and night to make your idea successful. That is the American entrepreneurial spirit that works.

And yet here in Washington under the party that's in power, they know no limit, no limit to Federal government involvement in your life. They know no limit to borrowing, spending, and believing that they should take over your health care. The Democrats want to put a bureaucrat between you, your insurance company, and your doctor. It's bad enough with the bureaucracy that's out there today trying to get health care. I paid for health care for our employees, my wife and I did, paid 100 percent of the premium. I know what those cost increases look like. We never could target enough to figure how much they would go up. And I want to do something to reform health care, and I have supported many proposals to do so.

The irony is the plans coming out of this Congress, these plans however, increase premiums on employers, drive up the cost curve on those of us who are trying to figure out how to make health care more affordable. The Democrats' plan actually drives up the cost curve, drives up the premium, puts mandates on individuals and taxes on small businesses and will cost millions of jobs long term and make America less competitive.

You don't think capital doesn't flow any more? You don't think we live in a global economy? For heaven's sakes. You don't think we need to be on our best game and have the most efficient process available to create jobs and run a business? No. I sit here in amazement. I have spent all-nighters in my business trying to make it work. I have struggled trying to pay the bills, get up early in the morning, trying to figure it all out, trying to cut your costs, trying to create your jobs, save jobs during tough times. We were in business 22 years. I have seen the good times, and we were successful in the end. I have seen the bad times, and I know what that's like.

But I also know that it's important how you spend your money. FOX News reported recently the National Institutes of Health received $8.2 billion in stimulus funds. I'm all for the National Institutes of Health. However, NIH is conducting a $65,472 study on the relationship between HIV and sex in St. Petersburg, Russia. You think I'm making this stuff up, don't you? $65,472 to study the relationship between HIV and sex in St. Petersburg, Russia. I won't even go there. $700,000 on how taxes, trade, and politics affects tobacco sales in Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, and other nations in Southeast Asia. $73,000--you'll like this one--to study whether the Asian tradition of dragon boat racing will enhance the lives of cancer survivors--$73,000 to look at whether or not dragon boat racing enhances the lives of cancer survivors.

Why don't we put it into screenings? Oh, that's right. This is the administration that says, women don't really need to do breast screenings nearly as often or maybe at all. That's a report that came out of this administration. How absurd is that? Put your money in dragon boat racing, don't do mammograms. This doesn't make sense to me. And I don't think it makes sense to Americans.

We are looking at some of the other spending. How about this one: $67,726 in taxpayer money to send staff to a customer service seminar, the Green Bay

Press-Gazette reports. The Oneida Bingo and Casino outside of Green Bay, Wisconsin, used a Federal stimulus grant to send their staff to a customer service seminar. The 2-day seminar was held at a local technical college to teach the casino staff how to handle confrontations with customers.

These are the investments. Do you see why some of us, why every Republican voted against that stimulus? We knew it was going to be wasted.

Now let's go to the Congressional Budget Office because they said in the first year or two you can't spend that much money and not create a few jobs, even though they are probably short term. So I give them that. What they look at after that, though, is the debt service cost that actually becomes in the out years, years 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, a debt drag on the economy. It will cost us jobs because you can't borrow $800 billion and not have to pay it back. Even the Federal Government needs to learn that lesson.

Let's talk about the debt, because I think that is the single biggest threat to our country's future, to my son's future, to your children's future, is this enormous theft, intergenerational theft I think Senator John McCain called it, where we're taking money from them. Actually we're just stealing their credit card, and we're using it like there is no necessity to ever pay it back, to buy things today that they get the bill for later.

At $1.4 trillion, this year's deficit is more than three times that of a year ago. I want that number to sink in; $1.4 trillion dollars this year is triple what it was last year. Oh, and who was President last year? That's right, George W. Bush was. So they want to blame the prior administration. And certainly we all had our complaints at times with any administration. But the facts are these: $455 billion deficit at the beginning of this last fiscal year; this fiscal year, under Democrat control, House, Senate, White House, $1.4 trillion.

As a share of the economy, it's 10 percent of gross domestic product. That is the highest level since World War II. Deficits, however, went up under both parties. That's why we need a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. The great State of Oregon has had that in its constitution for as long as I can remember, and maybe since Statehood. And it has forced the State legislature and the Governor to make tough decisions to balance the budget. Sometimes I have agreed with those decisions, sometimes I haven't. Sometimes they've raised taxes and sometimes they've cut spending. But at the end of the day, they had to balance the budget.

If you want to reform this Congress, you would require that this Congress, every time, and the President, regardless of party, has to balance the budget. You could have an exemption if you're at war or in times of emergency. I understand that the Federal Government has some unique roles to play. But this is spending with reckless abandon. This is out of control. Debt held by the public rose above $7.5 trillion, or over 50 percent of gross domestic product, the highest level of the share of the economy in 50 years.

When Speaker Pelosi took over, it was at $8.9 billion--trillion dollars. Sorry. It's so hard to keep track of billions going to trillions. We used to--well, I think 100 bucks is a lot. When you're spending taxpayer money, we're talking billion, millions, forget it; billions, we don't even go there any more. We are now talking trillions.

So when Speaker Pelosi took over, the national debt was $8.9 trillion. Now why does that matter? The House controls the purse strings of what gets spent. So whoever controls the House starts every spending bill. That's how the process works. It's simple civics. The House, the United States House of Representatives, this body, you men and women who are watching or here tonight know that that's how it really works. The President can veto it, but at the end of the day, it's the House and the Senate that get together. The Congress controls the purse strings. The House originates these things.

So $8.9 trillion; the debt is now $12 trillion. Every man, woman and child in America is responsible for at least $39,000, and it's going up to $45,000. Under the President's budget, the debt is projected to double in the next 5 years, triple in 10. It will be roughly three- fourths the size of the entire economy by 2019.

Now I want you to think about a debt that goes to $17 trillion, $18 trillion, $19 trillion, $20 trillion, and how you ever pay that back. When Republicans were in charge of the Congress and before the 9/11 attacks and the wars broke out, we actually paid down debt, half a trillion dollars worth. It was a proud moment for our country and for this Congress and for both parties. But it was really Republicans who drove it. We had a Democrat President. We worked in a bipartisan way to get it done, though. And the economy is strong. And we paid down debt.

Now go with me on this. Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, get closer to that TV because we're going to go through some math here. I was a journalism major, not a math major, but I think I can figure this one out. Twenty trillion dollars is at issue here. To pay it off, presume that Congress would have to run a surplus of $1 trillion a year for a 20-year span and not spend it, actually apply it to paying down the debt. How many in this Chamber tonight think that's going to happen? Raise your--well, nobody raised their hands. Because nobody believes Congress will ever run a trillion dollar surplus under any condition and apply it to pay down the debt.

That's why these issues today in our country's life are so critical, because we have taken our kids' and grandkids' and probably great grandkids' credit cards and spent like there was no reason not to. And they're going to get the bill.

According to The Washington Post, when adjusted for the inflation, World War II, the Korean War, the interstate highway system, the Vietnam War, the race to the moon, and the Iraq War added up to $6 trillion. We are now at 12, and we are headed to 20. In comparison, the government will borrow $9 trillion over the next decade.

Now, let's go to a bill that just came up in this House Chamber. It's called the omnibus. Whenever you hear that word, shutter your children's eyes and ears. Omnibus. It's really a bad thing. American families are hurting. Ten percent unemployment. Democrat leadership responds with a massive spending bill last Thursday. Last Thursday this came forward. And let me talk to you about that bill; 2,500 pages, nearly half a trillion dollars in spending, 5,000 earmarks on hundreds of pages, and we, under the Democrat leadership, we in the House of Representatives--do you know how much time we were given to read it?

Now I'm not Evelyn Wood. It takes me a little more, I'm not a great speed reader. We were given 2 days to read the bill since the conference report was filed.

Two days. Half a trillion dollars was spent. Two thousand five hundred pages, 5,000 earmarks, and we were given 2 days.

The omnibus contained appropriation bills--$446.8 billion for those keeping track. So half a trillion, 12 percent over the combined funding levels for the same six appropriation bills last year. How many of you got a 12 percent raise? How many of you would just like to have a job? How many of you got a 12 percent raise? These six spending bills gave your Federal agencies a 12 percent increase in spending.

Now, there will be those that will say, Oh, but it was for this, it was for that. Everything is wonderful when you're giving it away. Everybody wants to be Santa Clause. There's a big bag in the back of the sleigh parked right behind the podium here, I'm convinced of it. There are more presents than there are kids right now when it comes to this Congress; the problem is we don't have the elves' workshop at the North Pole. We've got kids at home and families at home who are unemployed trying to figure out how to make ends meet. You would think that this government was running a huge surplus and would be able to help them, but no, we're running a huge deficit that hurts jobs, takes away jobs, and they spend 12 percent more.

Some of these bills, the Transportation-HUD bill was up 21.3 percent; State and Foreign Operations up 33.2 percent. In addition to the normal appropriations, the agencies funded in this omnibus received a total of $128.2 billion in supplemental funding in the

stimulus bill that we heard about earlier. So when you heard about this stimulus, the American Recovery Act and how evil it was the Republicans didn't vote for it, remember where a lot of that money went; it went back into the government. It didn't go out into middle America. It didn't go out into rural America. Some of it did, certainly, but it did not go very far outside of Washington.

So here is the final tally: The omnibus spending bill I just referenced brings new spending for nondefense, nonveterans discretionary programs to a level 85 percent higher than 2 years ago.

I will be happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I assume that that is the rule coming out of the Rules Committee that provides for same-day consideration of four pieces of legislation. Would that be correct?

Parliamentary Inquiry

Could I ask a parliamentary inquiry?

Does clause 6(a) provide for same-day consideration of the bill?

Thank you.

So what you've heard there is a procedural action that has importance because it comes right in the point I'm talking about with the omnibus, where we had 2 days to consider a bill that costs American taxpayers half a trillion dollars.

What is coming up next are the four ``go home'' bills. These are the four bills we've got to pass in order to wind things up before Christmas, and they will take these up tomorrow. I haven't seen them, have you? Have any of you? Nobody here has seen them. Maybe they have in the Rules Committee which just apparently has finished its work, but we haven't seen them. They will raise the debt. They will spend--well, I don't know. I'm told one of them is going to spend tens of billions of dollars; I don't know how much, don't know where.

There will probably be a continuing resolution to fund the government because the Democrats, who control the House by a huge 40-vote margin, 41, the Senate with 60 votes, and the White House, even with that massive, overwhelming, powerful control, couldn't pass the budget bills by the time the fiscal year ended.

Now, in America, in real America--that's the area outside the Beltway of Washington--if you don't pay your bill on time, what happens? What happens? You get an interest penalty. What happens? Somebody says, hey, you're behind on paying your bill. When it happens here, nothing happens--except it will come November of 2010, I predict, because I think Americans have had enough of what's happened here.

But what happens here is they didn't do their work, they didn't finish the process, they didn't pass the budgets, they didn't meet the deadlines. So now we've punted into 2010 for the budget year we're already in. Both parties have done this. That's why we need to reform the process. But, hey, they control 60 in the Senate; that gets you past any filibuster, 60 votes. They control the House with a huge margin, and the White House, and not even with those margins, with single-party powerful control of both Chambers of Congress and the White House could they pass the budget bills. That's why you had the omnibus at the end of the week where they lumped six of them together and jacked up the spending by 10, 12 percent.

So here's the final tally: The omnibus brings the new spending for nondefense, nonveteran discretionary programs to 85 percent higher than just 2 years ago; 85 percent higher spending by the Federal Government. You want to know where your money is going? Out of your paycheck, into this body, and out into the bureaucracy.

So it should come as no surprise during this time--which tracks with the recession that has eliminated 2.9 million American jobs--the salaries of government bureaucrats have exploded. According to a story in USA Today, Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14 percent to 19 percent of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months. And you wondered where the money is going.

Let's go back to the Republican plan because, once again, when it came to the deficit, a lot of us came out of the private sector, small business. Every business that makes jobs is a good thing, frankly, in America these days, but I happen to come out of small communities and represent a district that's 70,000 square miles of gorgeous country, high desert plateaus, forested mountain ranges, wonderful agriculture. We believe in renewable energy--hydro, wind, solar, geothermal. Renewable energy matters. It's a good thing. And Republicans actually have supported renewable energy--I have and will continue to as long as it's reasonable and doesn't jack up rates.

But you look at what's happening right now with the Speaker taking a government jet over to Copenhagen with a whole bunch of Members of Congress. They're going to go to that climate change conference.

Now, let's look at what happened here in this Congress when they passed the climate change bill, the global warming bill. I was on the committee that dealt with that legislation and it passed in pretty record time. It's a $700, $800 billion cost. But what does it mean to you as an individual American out there? Well, let me tell you. If that becomes law, it means the loss of probably 2 to 5 million American jobs because companies will look at all requirements and say either, I can't afford to continue to operate and I'm closing my doors, or I found a cheaper place to manufacture my product than the good old USA, so I'm going to go and open a factory in China or India that doesn't play by the same rules that this law has and I'm going to move my jobs over there. Sorry. Just one too many things.

So for the average American, it means the loss of a couple million jobs. This is being done intentionally. They are passing this knowing what the estimates show from the National Association of Manufacturers, the Black Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations that have looked at this legislation, this cap-and-tax, cap-and-trade legislation. They've said, we've run the numbers; this is going to cost us a lot of jobs, puts new taxes on it. It is a huge, big Federal involvement in everything you and I do in this economy.

But what else does it mean? If you're a consumer and you happen to live in the great Northwest and are a customer of Pacific Power, they've reviewed this legislation, they've run it through their power production model and out comes the data. The data on what the cap-and- trade that the Democrats passed, Speaker Pelosi's bill, would do to a Pacific Power customer in Oregon and the rest of their region is, in the first year your electricity rates, as high as they are today, will go up 17.9 percent. You know, maybe this is the year you do want coal in your stocking. 17.9 percent is what your electricity rates will go up.

Now, that's bad enough. Maybe you have put in the fluorescent lights--and I think Oregon has been a real leader in that effort--to reduce your energy consumption, maybe you've weatherized and caulked, done all the things to reduce your energy consumption, maybe you just crank it back down to 67 instead of 68 degrees in the winter and not run air conditioning in the summer. You do everything you can.

Maybe you can adjust for that. But here's what it does when you go to the gas station. There are estimates out there that say the cap-and-tax bill that Speaker Pelosi and others in this Chamber passed will drive up the cost of gasoline in America by 50 cents, 60, 70--some say as much as $1. Nobody really knows for sure until it takes effect.

Explain this to me. This is like bad Santa. Explain this to me. This isn't the present I want. I don't want higher gasoline prices. Don't you think that had an effect on our economy? It certainly did on the families I talked to at Grants Pass and Medford and John Day across my district that commute great distances.

You know, if you're a farmer or a rancher, you saw what it did to the price of your fertilizer when natural gas went up. You saw what it did when diesel went up to $5 a gallon. We should be accessing America's great energy resources, not importing them. We should be working toward new fuel-efficient vehicles and backing up that research. I actually drive hybrids on both coasts. I'm fortunate in that respect. I want to reduce my fuel intake and consumption, and I just don't like sending the money overseas where we get a lot of our fuel, frankly. I want to do my part. I am fortunate and able to do that now. A lot of people aren't; they're stuck. They can't buy a new car right now. They might not even have a job. My State is like the sixth highest unemployment in the country. I've got five counties that are lingering right at 20 percent unemployment. This is tough.

Rather than access our great oil and reserves that--by the way, there are estimates that at the peak price of gasoline in this country, that America's great oil and gas reserves, if not blocked off by the Congress, the Democrat-controlled Congress, if we had access to those, it would produce a value of $60 trillion. Now, that was at the peak of the value of gas and oil, certainly, but let's say it's off by half and it's only $30 trillion. Remember that debt I talked about earlier, the debt that could be $20 trillion? What if we actually developed our own oil and gas resources in America, became less dependent on Hugo Chavez and Venezuela or some of the other countries that frankly aren't real friendly to us? What if we stopped funding some of the things they do that actually work against our way of life by not spending money on oil? What if we developed our own resources? And they will say, well, it will take you 10 years. Well, let's get started. That's my view. Let's get started. While we work on a transitional vehicle that doesn't have to use oil and gas, which I'm all for; but in the meantime, there are a lot of working Americans that have to take that pickup, hook up that horse trailer and go out and do their work on the cattle ranch. There are a lot of people hauling things back and forth so that our economy functions; $3, $4 and $5 diesel about killed them economically.

So why don't we access our great oil and gas reserves? We should. And we generate revenue to the government that, if you had a fiscally responsible Congress, would use to pay down the debt and pay down the debt before our kids come of age and our grandkids come of age. That is the Christmas present I would like to see. That actually would be like sort of good Santa as opposed to bad Santa. Bad Santa says, we're taking away everything we have. We're going to rely on foreign imports for oil and gas. We're going to jack up your electricity rates. That's not Christmas like I know it.

I want a real Christmas, where we put people back to work in the private sector, not trying to figure out something about Viking era pollen in Iceland--that's where some of your stimulus money went--or jobs that last a day or two or a week or two and then go away and get counted as if they're permanent. I want permanent, family-wage jobs. This country can get back on its feet if we get this Congress out of the way.

But as I talk to business people, I hear time and again, I can't keep pace with the change coming out of Washington. You're changing everything related to energy. I don't know what those costs are going to be, I don't know where you're headed, I don't know how I'm going to deal with that.

And then health care takeover by the Federal Government, same sort of thing. Is the government going to run all this? Am I going to run all this? What's that going to cost me? Am I going to pay a penalty? There's another couple million jobs projected to go away with the government takeover of health care.

And the debt. People who do have some money and want to invest in a start-up company are sitting on the sidelines because they don't know what is going to happen on tax policy. Do the tax reductions that spurred a very strong economy go away or do they stay? Do people who have some level of wealth lose it all to the Federal Government on New Year's Day of 2011?

Do their kids get to continue the family farm or family business, or does the tax man show up with the undertaker? That's the choice. That's the choice.

It doesn't have to be that way. We can create real jobs in this country.

Let me tell you about the other real jobs you can create, and that is in the great Northwest woods. Now, you have heard me on this floor before advocate for bipartisan legislative changes, changes in the law that have achieved broad support in this Congress to allow us to go out and be good stewards of our Federal forests. Teddy Roosevelt created these forests in 1905. He began that process with the great forest reserves.

He said in a speech in Utah that the purpose of these reserves was twofold: to make sure that we had good clean water for agriculture, and that we had timber for homemaking, homebuilding. Now, those are the two purposes he outlined in a speech in Utah at about that period. Those are the purposes. Now, we know we have evolved since then. Clearly, though, we have not evolved from wanting good, clean water, healthy green forests. We do need lumber.

The choice that the liberals have made in this government and in this Congress is away from active management to locking things up and calling it management, calling it preservation. As a result, you have forests across the West that are overgrown and choked. They can't breathe. You are standing on their air hose.

Meanwhile, you have all this ladder fuel building up underneath them because for 100 years we have suppressed fire. Smokey Bear worked, convinced us we can go stop forest fires. We spend tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars, whatever the figure is every year to fight fire. It's over half, I believe, of the Forest Service budget now goes to fight fire when we should be doing the work on the ground to prevent fire. We should get these forests back into balance, get that ladder fuel out of there.

It used to burn up naturally, but we started fighting fire, we allowed it to grow up, and we quit managing. The outcome is like your yard when you never prune or clean or weed or mow or do any of that. It just becomes a mess and out of balance until something catastrophic happens. The catastrophic thing that happens is fire.

Fire is the great equalizer of the forest. It is the biggest clear- cutter out there, and it is devastating when there is such a fuel load as exists today. The fires burn and they release enormous amounts of carbon, not only carbon dioxide but also all kinds of pollutants into the atmosphere, including particulates that are equivalent to vast volumes of automobiles on the highways.

Now, you are not going to stop every fire. Nature has a wonderful way of continuing to participate in the management process. We can get out and protect our watersheds and we can put people back to work, because this really is about jobs, jobs in the woods.

In my district, where we have 20 percent unemployment or nearly so, and it is probably actually higher than that in some areas because people have given up--we are sixth in the country with unemployment-- the policies of the Federal Government on Federal land have been so over the top that we have lost the jobs. We have lost the mills. In some communities, they are close to losing hope. Nothing this Congress has done has helped them in a measurable, sustainable way.

Last week, my colleague from Washington State, Brian Baird, who, unfortunately, just announced his retirement from this body, he and Stephanie

Herseth Sandlin from South Dakota, Walt Minnick from Idaho, Cathy McMorris Rodgers from Washington State and others who care about our great forests, offered up legislation to take a successful law we passed in a bipartisan way and expand it out over what they call condition class 2 and 3 forestlands and allow our professional scientists, biologists, geologists, hydrologists, all the people involved in forest management to get out there, get unshackled from the courtroom and the computer, get away from the lawsuits and, well, the litigation, the lawsuits, and get out and actually do what they were trained to do. Get our forests back in shape. Protect the watersheds and the environment. Put people to work.

I mention that we use lumber in this country. This is a carbon sink right here, this podium. This is wood, you know that. This is wood. This is a carbon sink. This was a tree once. What we do now is we put off limits our Federal forests for active management and harvest, for the most part. Instead, we import wood from countries that have virtually no environmental, enforced environmental rules. As a result of that, we just shift the problem and make it worse somewhere else. Rather than responsibly managing our forests, we let them go up in smoke. We have catastrophic, destructive wildfire that does terrible damage to our watersheds and habitat, kills firefighters, kills people in their homes, burns up their homes.

There is so much we could be doing if we got an economic model that works. It's not just because we don't spend enough Federal money. You know, one of the things that drives me over the top, over the edge, off the cliff, is when people say to me, If I just had more government money or more government employees, I could solve that problem.

We are at a debt load that is unsustainable. Not every problem demands a government solution from Washington, D.C. In fact, we should be more creative than that. You know, spending somebody else's money isn't that hard. In fact, you can throw it away, as we have seen with a lot of the stimulus money. Throw it away, the causes and programs that study in pollen from Vikings. I have got to find out about those Vikings with pollen. I don't know if they used Claritin or not, but something was going on there.

You can throw money out the door, flush it away. Those of us who have been in the private sector, small business, know that every dollar is hard to get. Making a profit ain't easy; it's tough. That's why you are so tight with your funds.

You know that the good times come and the good times go. If you are successful enough, you try and set aside a reserve for those bad times. Yet, in this Congress, oh, my gosh, it is out of control in terms of the spending and the deficits.

You know, the omnibus that passed last week, the bill that spent a half a trillion dollars, we had 2 days to even think about it. It's just not the way to legislate. It's not responsible. It's not becoming of this body. It is not how we should operate, regardless of which party is in control. Right now, the Democrats are in control, so they get the glory and they get the responsibility, and it needs to change in terms of how we operate.

My colleague, Brian Baird from Washington State, and several Members on both sides of the aisle supported an effort to get it some reform that said we should change the rules of how this House operates so that the American people, the Members of Congress, and the press could see legislation on the Internet, the great equalizer of information, on the Internet at least 72 hours before it comes up for a vote on this House floor. We are talking 72 hours. Now, I think it ought to be 2 or 3 weeks, by the way.

Remember, this omnibus spending bill was 2,500 pages. Nobody in here read it before they voted on it. I voted against it, by the way, because I think it's irresponsible. I wasn't alone. I think every Republican voted against it, just like we did against the stimulus. This stuff is not responsible, folks. There are alternatives we have offered, not on that one, because I don't think we were allowed to, but certainly on the others. On health care and on energy and on creating jobs, we have offered real alternatives, and we will talk more about those in subsequent evenings.

This notion that we should have 72 hours should be bipartisan. I say to my colleagues, I guarantee you, if that resolution to change how we operate in this assembly were to come up for a vote and it said we get 72 hours, these bills go on the Internet for 72 hours so the whole world can read them and understand them--and, by the way, give us input of what may be wrong in them before we vote on them. That's a concept that's novel. If that resolution were brought to this floor and the yeas and nays were called for, I doubt there would be a dissenting vote. Does anyone in here think there would be a dissenting vote? Nobody would want to go back to a town hall and say, No, you shouldn't have 72 hours to read the bills.

You know, I began to ask this question when we were taking up the cap-and-trade bill, cap-and-tax bill, the global warming and climate change bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee, the administration Cabinet secretaries who came before us to tell us the great, wonderful nature of this legislation. I asked a simple question of every single witness that came before us: Have you read this bill? Have you read this bill? With one exception, and that person was right at the last hearing we had the last day and I think maybe saw it coming, everyone said, Well, no. Well, no, I haven't really read the bill, but I know the concept.

We ought to have at least 72 hours to read the bills. That ought to change.

Now, I know when I filed a discharge petition, and that goes in a box over here--or, actually, not in a box. They keep track of it over here on a ledger. All it takes is 218 Members of the House, which is a simple majority, to go sign that petition and then it comes up for a vote. But the Democrat leadership in the House has made it very clear to their Members not to sign the petition. Only six of them have. I commend those for standing up for what's right for this body and this process and for the American people, those six who signed it. The others have buckled at their knees, apparently, and refused. They have walked away. It's available today to be signed, tonight, tomorrow, when we come back in January. The American people are watching. They know that this would be a good thing. They know that this would be a good thing.

I see we now have the omnibus which has arrived. When we talk about 2,500 pages of spending, this is it. This puppy is 2,500 pages of spending. This is what the Congress was given 2 days to work its way through. This is half a trillion dollars. Have you ever seen half a trillion dollars? This is it, right here, half a trillion. Come on down, we will get it half price, half a trillion dollars.

Do you wonder why the deficit is so big? No time to consider this thoughtfully, thoroughly, rush it through. Rush it through, 2,500 pages.

The stimulus, the Recovery Act that spent $787 billion. You know, I told you we had 2 days to consider this omnibus spending bill, 2 whole days, count them. When the stimulus bill passed in February of this year, the House was given 12 hours to review it, 12 hours. It was 1,073 pages, 1,072 pages, spent $787 billion. Remember, that's where that Viking pollen study in Iceland comes from, or the sidewalk around a casino or sending casino workers to sort of sensitivity training. Don't be so rough on the slot machine. Be nicer to the craps table. I don't know.

Cap-and-trade, passed in June; $846 billion is the cost of that bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 1,428 pages, 1,428 pages, 16\1/2\ hours to consider it. Oh, by the way, they dropped a 309-page amendment at 3 o'clock in the morning. Now I am going to tell you, nothing good happens at 3 o'clock in the morning. Nothing good happens at 3 o'clock in the morning. You can get hit with a golf club at 3 o'clock in the morning, 309-page amendment, 3 o'clock in the morning, 16\1/2\ hours for consideration.

The health bill, introduced July 14, 12:51 in the afternoon, $1.28 trillion. Remember, we are talking T's now. Forget hundreds, thousands, millions, billions. We are now, in this Democrat-controlled Congress, talking trillions. With 1,026 pages in the committee upon which I serve, the Energy and Commerce Committee, we were allocated a whopping 14 hours and 9 minutes before

we started voting on that bill. Remember, I am including the all-night hours, all-night hours.

According to a newspaper here on the Hill, actually, The Hill, Democratic leaders have waived transparency rules at least 24 times to rush votes this year alone, 24 times. Twelve of those bills were available for less than 24 hours.

This omnibus bill back here, half a trillion in spending, just this last week passed 221-201, no Republicans voting for the bill. Increased funding for Federal agencies, 12 percent. Some as much as 33, some as much as 21. The final tally for this omnibus new spending for nondefense, nonveteran discretionary programs took it up to a level of 85 percent higher than 2 years ago. Eighty-five percent higher than 2 years ago. The debt up $1.4 trillion. The deficit this year, $1.4 trillion, in 1 year. It wasn't that many years ago, and, of course I'm getting older, I think it was in the eighties; so it's been some 20 years, I think our whole national debt was only a trillion dollars, which was an enormous amount then. Now it's going up by more than that annually.

This is a freight train without brakes. This is a runaway train that's headed off a cliff, and it's going to take Americans with it if we don't put a stop to it. You cannot continue down this path. You cannot continue down this path.

We tried to figure out how some of this money has been spent. The press is doing its job. The New Orleans Times-Picayune. Details: Louisiana has seven congressional districts. So Louisianans visiting recovery.gov, that's the Web site where all this stuff is posted so there's great transparency and accountability. Remember, this was the Web site the President and the Vice President, Joe Biden, said by golly, you're going to see it all out there. So Louisianans visiting recovery.gov found themselves just skeptical but truly puzzled to see nearly $5 million was listed as headed to Louisiana's Eighth Congressional District. There are only seven. Not eight; seven. That site also listed the 12th, the 26th, the 45th, the 14th, the 32nd, and, my favorite, 00. I don't know if that's 007 or if it's--I don't know.

According to Ed Pound, Director of Communications for recovery.gov, the site relies on self-reporting by recipients of the stimulus money.

This is oversight? This is transparency? I mean, this is a government that can't figure out who's going to the White House for dinner that's spending your money, and this is transparency. Pound said information from FederalReporting.gov has been simply transferred to recovery.gov. And no one checks to verify its accuracy or to take note of the fact that Utah doesn't really have seven congressional districts; it has three. South Dakota has one, not 10.

Pound: ``We're not certifying the accuracy of the information. We know what the problem is and we are trying to fix it,'' he said. Asked why recipients would pluck random numbers to fill in for their congressional district, Pound replied, and this is my favorite, ``Who knows, man. Who really knows. There are 130,000 reports out there.''

Somebody should know. It's your money. Well, again, it's not really your money yet because we borrowed it. Congress borrowed it from the Chinese, the Japanese, all kinds of lenders, oil-producing nations that we pay exorbitant prices to for the crude oil because we don't access our own resources here. They're the ones doing it.

Talladega County, Alabama, claimed to have saved or created 5,000 jobs from only $42,000 in stimulus funds. That's 5,000 jobs, $42,000 in expenditures. Now they're efficient. That would be $8.40 a job. Now there are some cheap places to work, but I don't even think Alabama is paying their people $8.40 a job, though; so there's something wrong there.

Belmont Metropolitan Housing Authority in Ohio reported 16,120 jobs saved or created for $1.3 million. Now, that is efficient too. So congratulations to Belmont. That's $80.64 a job.

Folks, the government is not the creator of jobs, not jobs that are sustainable, because you have to take money away from those who have it to redistribute it, and it's not being done very efficiently, affordably, transparently, or with accountability.

And how long do these jobs last? I want jobs created out in the private sector that fund the government, and by that I mean if you have a vibrant private sector, people are paying taxes. If businesses are making a profit, they're going to pay a tax, pay a lot of tax. Individuals earning a salary, earning a wage, they're paying tax. Ask them. That's what funds government. It's not the other way around. And that's the difference between many of us in this body is there are those who believe every problem needs a Federal solution regardless of what it costs now or in the future. That's why you need a balanced budget, a requirement in the Constitution to keep both parties in check.

We need to get this house back in order, and I mean the global house, the U.S. itself, how money is spent, how it's allocated, what we do with it. This is obscene. It really is. All I see is just one government takeover after another.

Now, is there room to do more oversight where it's necessary, fix markets where they're broken? Yes. Will we debate how far you go in that? We should. But we should do that in an open and thoughtful manner. I've served on some nonprofit boards, a hospital board, a business association board, and we'd have vigorous debates, but we always did it with the notion of common good. We'd bring what we had to the table, and we would try to find a solution.

I thank you, my colleagues, for letting me share those comments with you tonight.