Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was a small business owner for 21 years. There is no question that it's time to reform the health care system, but a government takeover is not the solution. Putting a government bureaucrat

between your family and your doctor is not the solution, and losing the health plan you have today is not a solution. Yet the Democrats' bill would do just that. It puts a bureaucrat between you and your doctor. It doesn't have real reform. According to independent analysis, two out of three Americans won't be able to keep their plans, and it does nothing to bring down the costs. In fact, it drives up the deficit by over $239 billion.

Meanwhile, if you're out in places like Oregon, rural Oregon, the CEO of Asante Health System, Roy Vinyard, in southern Oregon, said the government option under the Democrats' plan would be the death knell for hospitals since it pays Medicare rates. Currently, Medicare only pays 76 percent of their hospital's costs, and yet 52 percent of their patients are on Medicare. If the percentage of Medicare-like payments increases to 75 percent of their patients, the hospital will have to close its doors.

So that plan does nothing to rein in costs. It does nothing to keep the doors open. We need to reform health care, but let's do it in a way that puts patients first and that doesn't destroy small business.

Madam Speaker, consistent with the House Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, to the best of my knowledge the requests I have detailed below are (1) not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; and (2) not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark. As required by earmark standards adopted by the House Republican Conference, I submit the following information on projects I requested and that were included in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 3288).

Account: Federal lands (Public Lands Highways)

Project Name: Highway 140, Lake County, OR

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon Department of Transportation, 355 Capitol Street NE., Room 135 Salem, OR 97301

Project Location: Lake County, Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 3288 appropriates $1,250,000 for the Highway 140 (Lake County, OR) project. According to the requesting entity, funding would be combined with other state and federal funds to complete a project that will straighten an existing sharp and dangerous curve on Highway 140, Warner Highway, in Lake County, Oregon. According to the Oregon Department of Transportation, this is a valuable use of taxpayer funds because it will improve safety and eliminate existing vehicle length restrictions on Highway 140.

Account: Surface Transportation Priorities

Project Name: Bear Creek Greenway Crossing at Barnett Road (Medford,

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue this question of: Where are the jobs?

The gentleman who spoke just before me is from Michigan, where their unemployment is upwards of 14 percent. Oregon's unemployment rate is now over 12.2 percent and is second only to Michigan.

Our basic industries have been shut down. My part of the State, by Federal policy, prevents us from even harvesting burned dead trees in a timely manner from our Federal forest lands and accessing our resources. Now along comes legislation that says if you take woody biomass off Federal land and use it to make new, clean, efficient energy, if it comes up as certain types of stands, it doesn't count. It's not renewable. So the jobs that would go with the creation of that were really diminished or were taken away fully by the cap-and-tax legislation, which we know is going to cost 1 million or 2 million jobs in this great State of ours.

I was out in John Day and Nyssa and Burns this weekend and Baker City. Everywhere I went at town meetings, the rooms were full, and people were asking, What are they doing to us in Washington? Where are the jobs?

I thank my colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today also in support of this legislation. I think it's a good bill because I think hydroelectric power is a good thing for our country, and when we're concerned about getting renewable energy online, there's probably nothing better than hydropower for that.

Unfortunately, in the cap-and-tax bill that was passed by this House over my objection and over the objection of the gentleman from Illinois, there is a provision on page 19, line 12, sub 3, that says, The hydroelectric project installed on the dam is operated so that the water surface elevation at any given location and time that would have occurred in the absence of the hydroelectric project is maintained.

Now, I share this language with you because the gentleman from Illinois, my friend, talked about the 404,000 watts or megawatts, whatever it is--I didn't jot down the exact amount--would be produced as hydroelectric power and, therefore, renewable energy and create new jobs. My concern is this: that hydropower is being added after this legislation is moving forward.

Should the cap-and-tax bill become law, that hydropower, according to this language, would not be considered as renewable energy for purposes of Illinois meeting the new Federal standard on renewable energy. Because in consultation with two civil engineers I've spoken with who operate hydro projects--many of them and large-scale hydro projects-- when I shared this language with them about maintaining the surface elevation at any location in time, they laughed. They said you can't operate a hydro system and not affect the water behind the dam in some way at some point.

And so to disqualify the new hydro--like the gentleman from Illinois is trying to get here--makes no sense to me. Either hydropower is renewable or it's not.

Now, there is another provision in this bill, the cap-and-tax bill, that said hydro that came online after 1988 is renewable but hydro before 1988 is not. Now, you have got water flowing down a river. You've got multiple dams along the way with hydro generation facilities. It's the same water. It just depends on what year the dam was built whether or not that hydropower is considered renewable or not. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Nor do the provisions in the cap-and-tax bill that said, if woody biomass off a Federal forest comes off of a late successional stand, you can't count the burning of that to produce green energy as renewable energy, but if it came off of a severely damaged tree, it is, although there is no definition for that. And if any woody biomass comes off private, county, State lands, it's all considered renewable energy when it produces electricity when it's burned, but yet there is this restriction on Federal land.

I share that with you because America's Federal forests are terrifically overstocked and subject to catastrophic fire.

We could create more real jobs cleaning up the forest in very depressed communities. I was just out in four counties in my district. I think two, maybe three, are now at over 20 percent unemployment. They have 70, 50 and 80 percent Federal land. This is the great forests of our country that are left to burn up. The woody biomass could be put into clean energy. There are firms willing to invest if they could get supply. Again, the cap-and-trade, cap-and-tax bill harms that effort.

So I share the gentleman's support of this legislation to create and move forward on the hydro project. It's unfortunate if the cap-and-tax bill that passed the House becomes law that hydro will not be considered renewal. That doesn't make sense. And I hope that the Senate can correct this problem.

I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina. I represent a district that's 70,000 square miles. Over half of it is already under Federal ownership and control. I wouldn't necessarily say good management because it's also home to lots of issues involving poor forest management, catastrophic fires, lots of degradation of the habitat and lack of management over the years. One of the things that troubles me about this legislation is that we're going to spend potentially $700 million overall--I've heard figures as high as that-- to apparently buy 19 million acres of land perhaps. And if it is, indeed, those levels, all that land, when the government buys it, comes off the tax rolls. I have got communities with 20 percent unemployment where the government owns 70 percent of the counties. They've shut down activity on the forests, and the Federal Government is trying to shut down activity out on the range land and destroy things like cattle ranching and some of the great economic ways of the West.

This legislation comes along and apparently is going to have us borrow another $700 million from somebody--probably the Chinese or whatever government decides they want to buy more of our debt, $700 million, almost $1 billion--so that we can go acquire more land as a government and take it off the tax rolls to deal with this issue. I just find it really disturbing. You are going to put a lot of people out of work in the rural West. This is not well-thought-out legislation. But speaking to the rule, we seem in this Congress, under Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat leadership, to have gone into not just tax-and-spend but gag-and-spend. I'll be asking soon to bring up a privileged resolution that I brought to this floor yesterday to allow us the opportunity to offer up amendments.

To be able to offer up amendments on appropriations bills as historically Members of this House were always able to do until just recently when we have seen a historic and unprecedented gagging of Members of the Republican Party by Members of the Democratic Party when we have tried to offer up alternatives, positive alternatives, suggestions, ways to protect freedom of speech and freedom of religion and to cut back on this outrageous deficit spending.

I guess those must be tough votes for the majority. They don't want to take them because they won't even allow our amendments to be debated on this House floor and considered.

So I'm sorry we have gotten into the gag-and-spend rules-making process around here.

Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

Yes, Madam Speaker, I do.

I appreciate that, Madam Speaker. Rule IX is intended to allow a Member to raise questions which, and I quote, ``those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings; and those affecting the rights of Members, individually, in their representative capacity.''

So I pose the question, What is more fundamental to the rights of Members of this House than the ability to represent their constituents and affect legislation brought to this floor?

The Democratic majority, under Speaker Pelosi, has unilaterally ended a 220-year tradition of allowing any Member to amend a spending bill. When my constituents sent me to Congress, they didn't send me here to just push the buttons using this card in a voting terminal. They wanted me to exercise all of the abilities granted to a Member of Congress. And the rule which this House passed yesterday by only a handful of votes, after arm twisting by the majority, denies me and every other Member the opportunity to fully represent their constituents.

If that does not ``affect the rights of this House,'' if that does not affect its ``dignity and the integrity of its proceedings,'' if that does not affect my rights as a Representative, I don't know what does.

For 220 years, we went along in this House with the opportunity to offer amendments. And sure, there were instances along the way where both parties probably restricted amendments that could be offered on appropriations bills, but not very often.

This is unprecedented and historic in terms of the gagging of Members on both sides of the aisle. We had them on the floor yesterday trying to offer an amendment, a Democrat, and he too was turned down and upset. So I'm sure the Chair can find some technical reason why my resolution to protect free speech rights on the public's airwaves may not be in order.

All we were trying to do is offer an amendment that had been offered up in 2007 and approved by over 300 Members of this House. When it was allowed to be considered and voted upon, it was approved by over 300 Members to protect the free speech rights of broadcasters, the citizens of this country as well. And instead, what we have now operating, I believe, affects the very rights of this House collectively, affects the dignity and integrity of its proceedings and affects the rights of its Members as described under rule IX individually in their representative capacity.

That is why I brought this privileged resolution to the floor, because I believe, as a citizen of this country and a Member of this great institution, that our rights have been diminished, and that indeed the integrity of this very House is on the line.

In fact, when you go to the Speaker's Web site, at least I think it is still up, she pledged an open debate and an opportunity for Members of Congress to be able to come to the floor and offer amendments, much like the chairwoman has done over time, and relishes that, as I do. It is part of what we do here, or what we were sent to do here.

It is pretty hard to offer up alternatives to spending bills to reduce deficits and to put ideas into law when the Speaker's Rules Committee acts and shuts down our very opportunity to even bring amendment up for debate.

Whether it passes or not will be up to the collective votes of this body. But we know that if we can never bring them up for debate, there will never be a vote. Now, maybe that's convenient to those who don't like to vote on difficult issues, or stand up for the free speech rights of broadcasters, whether they be religious broadcasters or those on the right or the left on talk radio, which is what my amendment would have sought to protect in the future.

But I really believe that rule IX is intended to allow Members to raise questions affecting the rights of the House collectively, to discuss its safety, and that's not at issue here, but its dignity is. The integrity of its proceedings are. Those rights, these are fundamental to each of us, regardless of the label behind our name that designates our party.

This is the one time we've had in this institution, to come forward with our ideas on how to control the bureaucracy, to offer an amendment that controls it. It's the only time I, as an individual, have that opportunity in the appropriations process, because I'm not a member of that committee, to represent my constituents. That's why I believe, under rule IX, my representative capacity is diminished, and that of many other Members in this Chamber, many who are watching right now. The public needs to understand this as well, that something has changed here, and it's not for the good. And I think it reflects badly on our proceedings. And I think it injures the integrity of this institution, let alone it's dignity. And that's why I make this parliamentary argument, that under rule IX, under rule IX, Members, it talks about collectively affecting the House.

Tell me, when Members of the minority or majority come before the Rules Committee and seek--well, first of all, have to even go to the Rules Committee. That didn't use to occur on appropriations bills, did it? It didn't used to occur. Only rarely, maybe once or twice in a year.

I appreciate the gentlelady's counsel and I will attempt to do that. I was trying to do that here, and certainly I'm arguing in favor of the rules of this House being observed; that's why I argue about the integrity of its proceedings.

In my view, proceedings have been shattered. Members of both parties are denied the opportunity, as our predecessors were allowed to have, to come to this floor and offer up amendments during the appropriations process. So I think my privileged resolution should be made in order, because I think my rights have been affected, and not in a good way. The rights of other Members are affected. I had more than one person on my amendment. And so individually, our representative capacity has been diminished. The voices I'm trying to represent are not allowed to be considered if I can't get my privileged resolution to be considered. All it did was ask for a vote on my amendment, that it be made in order, so that we could vote on it on the rule, which, oh, by the way, at this point, the way this process has been conducted, not only has the rule been passed, but also the bill has been passed. So it's kind of ironic now we'd have this argument about whether my privileged resolution was in order, which would have allowed me, had it been secured, it would have allowed me to have some additional representative capacity and be able to have a vote on the amendment or a vote on whether I could offer the amendment. I guess that's what would have occurred.

So I posit this point: That under rule IX, we are allowed to raise questions about issues that affect the rights of the House collectively. I can't think of something that affects the House more collectively than our inability to offer amendments. And so I think our integrity is at issue here, these proceedings. I think Americans have come to understand, bills are rammed through here without the opportunity to be read. We've got a 1,026-page bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee that I can't imagine anybody has read yet.

So, Madam Speaker, I'll conclude; that I hope you'll rule in my favor because I know, in your heart of hearts, you're a woman who believes in fairness, and you believe in the integrity of these proceedings, and you believe firmly and fervently in protecting the rights of Members, both individually and collectively, and that you, in no way, would want to diminish the capacity for yourself, when you're not in the chair, Members of this body, and for Members who will follow us. So I plead with you to do the right thing and allow a vote on my privileged resolution.

Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

I appreciate the gentleman raising this point of order and yielding. How ironic; the amendment we offered in good faith, after consideration with the parliamentarians, is fully in order under our House rules normally, except for the gag order that's been placed on us by the Rules Committee.

How ironic; we're trying to stand up and protect First Amendment free speech rights for American citizens and broadcasters to be able to discuss political issues and religious issues on America's airwaves, protect that right as the House did in 2007 with a 309-115 bipartisan vote.

We're talking about free expression, First Amendment rights, privileges that American citizens have enshrined, and the Democrat leadership of this Congress has conspired to prevent us from even allowing that amendment to be debated on this House floor and voted on. And yet, when it was brought before this House in 2007, 309 Members voted ``yes.'' It was a 3-1 margin that stood up for free speech and to protect free speech on America's airwaves, to protect the rights of religious broadcasters to engage in their discussions on America's airwaves.

Members of both parties supported this. And yet today, sometimes I feel like we're more an Iranian-style democracy, where all these rules that have been in place for many, many years in this House, historically back to its inception, that allow for open and vigorous debate on our House floor, have been now twisted and turned and crammed down to the fact that you're gagged. I'm gagged, the people we represent are gagged. It is simply outrageous that this is occurring.

We should be able to offer these amendments, as we have historically, in Republican and Democrat Congresses in the past. This is nearly unprecedented in the scope of clamping down on our ability to represent our constituents and in our ability to raise these issues on the floor of this great institution, of this democratic institution, where free speech and the opportunity to debate public policy issues are enshrined.

What has this House come to?

If you want to talk about how this body is being run, in the Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday, the best we could get on the Democrats' health plan was a closed-door briefing from the Congressional Budget Office that was only open to members of our staff and to no other staff and to no other citizens, and it was shut down to the press. Now, I find that outrageous.

So not only is this occurring on the amendments we hope to bring that are fully within the scope of the rules of this House and that have been well vetted--and you can smile. I get it. You

guys are in control. You're going to win. You've got the votes. You can shut us down. Yet, at the end of the day, the American people get it, and they get that bills are being rammed through here without due consideration and process and that Members on both sides of the aisle are having their amendments shut down, and they're not even being allowed to be considered.

I've been here for 10 years now. I remember, during appropriations season, we worked hard. We worked day and night, sometimes a lot longer than I'd wished we'd worked, but Members had the right under our rules to bring amendments forward that were within the constraints of the rules of this House and within the historic principles of this House. We had vigorous debates and we took tough votes. Then we went back and we defended those votes.

It is kind of ironic for someone who is so passionate about achieving voting rights in this city that we would be denied voting rights on this floor on amendments that we sought to be considered.

And that is really the issue I want to speak about at this time, and that is that we brought an amendment fully vetted within our rules to be allowable, had the Democrat majority allowed it to be considered, to protect freedom-of-speech rights for broadcasters and American citizens when it comes to debating political issues and religious issues on the Nation's airwaves.

The great irony here is in this city we cannot, and in this Chamber cannot, get a vote or even a debate on that amendment under the new regime in charge here in the House.

Now in 2007 when democracy was flourishing a little bit more in this body, and Members of Congress, elected by however many thousands of votes and representing more than half a million people, 650,000 or 660,000 people, could bring issues to this floor during this one time and have them debated and considered. When Mr. Pence and I brought the Broadcaster Freedom amendment to this floor, and it was allowed to be considered, 309 Members of this body voted in favor of it. When we sought to renew the prohibition on the Federal Government from putting Federal censors over the airwaves, we were denied the opportunity even to have that debate. You see, the one we got passed in 2007 expired 1 year later because it only went for as long as the appropriations bill.

We have a bill, a bipartisan bill, in committee to make this permanent. But once again, the Democratic leadership refuses to engage in democracy and allows us even to have a hearing on that legislation. Now, the irony is that both Republicans and Democrats in times gone by have abused the Fairness Doctrine. Bill Ruder who was assistant Secretary of Commerce under John Kennedy admitted to CBS news producer, Fred Friendly, ``Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hoped the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.'' George Will reported in a column December 7, 2008, that Richard Nixon emulated that process.

What we are trying to do is prevent any party, any politician in Washington from using a flawed process to silence and gag political speech on the airwaves. We all ought to be for that. Now the Fairness Doctrine is gone right now. But there are many, including leaders on the other side of the aisle, who have called for its return. Leader after leader, when asked by the press, called for its return. Some will say, well, no, that is not going to happen. Well, they have come around with a Trojan horse in the back door and say, we are going to do it a different way. We are going to call it ``localism.'' We are going to set up these

boards and commissions. We will have all this involvement. And if a broadcaster doesn't live up to what they are told to do, then their license will be pulled, or whatever.

We are just trying to say, no, Government, we don't need your censorship. Stay out of the process and allow us a vote. Don't just gag and spend here.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of my resolution is as follows:

Whereas the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden submitted an

amendment to the Committee on Rules to H.R. 3170, the

Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act;

Whereas the said gentleman's amendment would have protected

the free speech rights of broadcasters and American citizens

by prohibiting funds made available in the Act from being

used to implement the Fairness Doctrine and certain broadcast

localism regulations,

Whereas a similar amendment was adopted by the House in

2007 during consideration of H.R. 2829, the Financial

Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2008 by a

vote of 309 yeas and 115 nays, and became law, but the

Democratic leadership allowed the provision to expire;

Whereas the gentleman's amendment complied with all

applicable Rules of the House for amendments to

appropriations measures and would have been in order under an

open amendment process; but regrettably the House Democratic

leadership has dramatically and historically reduced the

opportunity for free speech on this Floor, and

Whereas the Speaker, Mrs. Pelosi, the Democratic

leadership, and the chairman of the Committee on

Appropriations, Mr. Obey, prevented the House from voting on

the amendment by excluding it from the list of amendments

made in order under the rule for the bill: Now, therefore, be

it

Resolved, That H. Res. 644, the rule to accompany H.R.

3170, be amended to allow the gentleman from Oregon's

amendment be considered and voted on in the Houses.

Madam Speaker, consistent with the House Republican Leadership's policy

on earmarks, to the best of my knowledge the requests I have detailed below are (1) not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; and (2) not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark. As required by earmark standards adopted by the House Republican Conference, I submit the following information on projects I requested and were included in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010 (H.R. 3183).

Account: Bureau of Reclamation--Water and Related Resources

Project Name: Deschutes Project

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Deschutes Basin Board of Control, PO Box 919, Madras, OR 97741

Project Location: Deschutes County, Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 3183 appropriates $482,000 for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Deschutes Project. According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used by the Bureau of Reclamation in coordination with the Deschutes Basin Board of Control (consists of the seven primary irrigation districts in Central Oregon) to pursue water conservation, piping, lining and efficiency projects that will improve irrigation efficiencies, and result in increased in-stream flows benefiting federally-listed steelhead and bull trout in the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers and their tributaries. The Deschutes Basin Board of Control states in their request that these projects will provide a broad array of economic and environmental benefits to central Oregonians.

Account: Bureau of Reclamation--Water and Related Resources

Project Name: Savage Rapids Dam Removal

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Grants Pass Irrigation District, 200 Fruitdale Drive, Grants Pass, OR 97527

Project Location: Savage Rapids Dam, Grants Pass, Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 3183 appropriates $1,160,000 for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Savage Rapids Dam Removal project. According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used by the Bureau of Reclamation to complete installation, testing, and operation of electric pumps and to complete removal of a major portion of the Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue River, Oregon. The Grants Pass Irrigation District states that this project, which was authorized by P.L. 108-137, is a justified use of taxpayer funding because it will restore significant portions of the Rogue Wild and Scenic River to a free-flowing river by removing the dam as an impediment to passage of federally-listed fish species.

Account: Corps of Engineers--Section 206

Project Name: Camp Creek, Zumwalt Prairie Preserve, OR

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: The Nature Conservancy in Oregon, 821 SE 14th Avenue, Portland, OR 97214

Project Location: Wallowa County, Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 3183 provides Corps of Engineers Section 206 status for the Camp Creek, Zumwalt Prairie Preserve in Oregon. According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used by the Corps of Engineers for site work on this ecosystem restoration project, including the removal of small push-up dams and to restore aquatic and riparian habitats within the upper Camp Creek watershed in The Nature Conservancy's Zumwalt Prairie Preserve in Wallowa County. The Nature Conservancy states in its request that this project is a justified use of taxpayer funding because it will create approximately 15 to 20 temporary and full-time jobs and support the restoration of aquatic and riparian habitat conditions along six miles of spawning habitat for Snake River Steelhead.

Account: Corps of Engineers--Investigations

Project Name: Walla Walla Watershed, OR & WA

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, PO Box 638, Pendleton, OR 97801

Project Location: Umatilla, Wallowa, and Union Counties in Oregon, Walla Walla and Columbia County in Washington

Description of Project: H.R. 3183 appropriates $203,000 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue the general investigations of the Walla Walla Watershed project. According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used by the Corps of Engineers for the feasibility report/environmental impact statement (FR/EIS) and to initiate pre-engineering and design based on findings and recommendations of the ER/EIS. Moreover, the project will provide restoration and management tools needed to help create a viable ecosystem within the Walla Walla River Basin for federally-listed bull trout and steelhead. The requesting entity states that this project is a justified use of taxpayer funding because the ER/EIS will promote the fulfillment of a Treaty reserved right of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation.

Account: Department of Energy--EERE

Project Name: Christmas Valley Renewable Energy Development

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon Department of Energy, 625 Marion St. NE, Salem, OR 97301

Project Location: Christmas Valley, Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 3183 appropriates $410,000 for the Oregon Department of Energy's Christmas Valley Renewable Energy Development project. According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used to conduct renewable energy assessments at the former site of the Air Combat Command Radar Transmitter located in Christmas Valley, Oregon. Specifically, the project will fund assessments of wind, solar and geothermal energy resources. Over the years, the US Air Force and Bureau of Land Management have left intact the mothballed facility's massive electrical transmission lines and support infrastructure that will someday allow for renewable energy development. The requesting entity states that this project is a justified use of taxpayer funding because it would advance the utilization of various renewable resources while providing a significant economic boost to the local economy of Lake County, Oregon which currently has a seasonably adjusted unemployment rate of 12.8 percent.

Account: Department of Energy--EERE

Project Name: Geothermal Power Generation Plant at Oregon Institute of Technology

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon Institute of Technology, 3201 Campus Drive, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601

Project Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 3183 appropriates $1,000,000 for Oregon Institute of Technology's Geothermal Power Generation Plant. According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used to help construct a high-temperature geothermal power plant on the Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT) campus. The plant will eventually provide 100 percent of the electricity demands and hot water supply to the campus and it would be the first flash steam geothermal power plant in Oregon. When the Geothermal Power Generation Plant is complete, OIT will be the only campus in the world to satisfy all of its electricity needs from an on-site geothermal energy source. The requesting entity states that this project is a justified use of taxpayer funding because it would serve as a demonstration tool and educational training facility for OIT students and faculty.

Madam Speaker, consistent with the House Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, to the best of my knowledge the request I have detailed below is (1) not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; and (2) not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark. As required by earmark standards adopted by the House Republican Conference, I submit the following information on a project I requested and was included in H.R. 3170--the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2010.

Account: Salaries and Expenses

Project Name: Technology Education Center

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Central Oregon Community College, 2600 NW College Way, Bend, Oregon 97701

Project Location: Bend, Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 3170 appropriates $100,000 for the Central Oregon Community College Technology Education Center project. According to the requesting entity, this

funding will be used to design and construct a 30,400 square foot Technology Education Center that will offer courses designed to ensure that the local workforce meets the needs of local industry. A quarter of the building space will be designated as an incubator for local industries to work with students to conduct research in order to develop new products and/or manufacturing processes that will strengthen local businesses while providing hands-on training to students. This is a beneficial use of taxpayer funding because this effort will ensure that the local workforce meets the needs of local employers and that local businesses have access to a facility that allows them to conduct research that will strengthen their business models.

Madam Speaker, consistent with the House Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, to the best of my knowledge the requests I have detailed below are (1) not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; and (2) not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark. As required by earmark standards adopted by the House Republican Conference, I submit the following information on projects I requested and that were included in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 2997).

Account: Agriculture Research Service--Salaries and expenses

Project Name: Northwest Center for Small Fruits, Corvallis, OR

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Northwest Center for Small Fruits Research, 4845 B SW Dresden Ave., Corvallis, OR 97333

Project Location: Corvallis, Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 2997 appropriates $254,000 for the Northwest Center for Small Fruits Research conducted by USDA's Agriculture Research Service (ARS). According to the requesting entity, the appropriated funds for this project will be used by ARS to fund cooperative research, extension, and education activities on peer- reviewed small fruits research project proposals that will enhance profitability and sustainability of the small fruits industry in the Pacific Northwest.

Account: National Institute of Food and Agriculture--SRG

Project Name: Multi-commodity Research, OR

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-4501

Project Location: Corvallis, Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 2997 appropriates $244,000 for the Multi-commodity Research, OR program to be conducted by Oregon State University. Oregon State University has confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for this project will be used to

enhance competitiveness and expand the economic value-added component in Oregon agriculture products through research and outreach in food processing, product development, business strategy, marketing, and consumer testing.

Account: National Institute of Food and Agriculture--SRG

Project Name: Potato Research, ID, OR, WA

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-4501

Project Location: Corvallis, Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 2997 appropriates $1,037,000 for the Potato Research, ID, OR, WA program to be conducted in part by Oregon State University. Oregon State University has confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for this project will be used to develop and commercialize new potato varieties that will directly benefit all segments of the Northwest potato industry and indirectly benefit all U.S. potato producing regions.

Account: National Institute of Food and Agriculture--SRG

Project Name: Regional Barley Gene Mapping Project, OR

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331-4501

Project Location: Corvallis, Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 2997 appropriates $471,000 for the Regional Barley Gene Mapping Project, OR program to be conducted by Oregon State University. Oregon State University has confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for this project will be used to stimulate economic activity in the agriculture sector and to improve human health and welfare by using the tools of genomics to develop improved barley varieties, which will be more tolerant of stresses caused by plant diseases, insects, and climate change. Furthermore, enhanced tolerance will lead to greater productivity with fewer chemicals and fertilizer inputs. The project will also help develop varieties that will provide needed crop diversity for eastern Oregon wheat farmers.

Account: National Institute of Food and Agriculture--SRG

Project Name: Small Fruit Research, ID, OR, WA

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331-4501

Project Location: Corvallis, Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 2997 appropriates $307,000 for the Small Fruit Research, ID, OR, WA program to be conducted in part by Oregon State University. Oregon State University has confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for this project will be used to fund cooperative and competitive research grants, and education activities to enhance the profitability and sustainability of the small fruits industry in the Pacific Northwest.

Account: National Institute of Food and Agriculture--SRG

Project Name: STEEP IV--Water Quality in Northwest

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331-4501

Project Location: Corvallis, Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 2997 appropriates $444,000 for the STEEP IV--Water Quality in Northwest program to be conducted in part by Oregon State University. Oregon State University has confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for this project will be used to establish a network of agriculture research sites from which to address long term agriculture, environmental, and agroecosystem problems. According to the requesting entity, to date, the STEEP research grant has provided funds to develop cropping techniques such as direct-seeding, residue management, weed control, and accompanying extension programs to facilitate the adoption of successful conservation farming for the Pacific Northwest.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to draw my colleagues' attention to the historic June 30, 2009, centennial of Oregon State University's Hermiston Agricultural Research and Extension Center, located in the corner of northeast Oregon near the mighty Columbia River.

Few areas in the world can match the quantity or quality of crop production of the Columbia Basin region that straddles the Oregon- Washington border. This center has been in the middle of it all for 100 years, helping farmers, ranchers, and researchers find ways to better grow and steward crops ranging from dry land wheat to watermelons; from sugar beets to wine grapes; from beef cattle to dairy cows.

Established in 1909, the ``Umatilla Experiment Farm'' initially served farmers trying to make a living on 20,000 acres of semi-arid northern Oregon desert as part of a federal government reclamation program. By the 1930s, farming expanded to well over 160,000 acres and the demand for the center's research reached levels far surpassing its initial 40 acres. The center moved and expanded to its current 300-acre location to better serve the region's agricultural communities. Today, the work done at this center serves well over 500,000 acres of irrigated and non-irrigated crop land.

The West is dominated by nutrient-deprived, semi-desert soils. The Columbia Basin is no different. So at the beginning, the center set upon helping farmers and ranchers overcome the fundamental challenges posed by an annual rainfall rate of eight inches. Researchers determined which types of organic matter, when put into the soil, would produce the best crops. They worked with farmers, ranchers, and communities to identify more efficient water use, based on soil type, topography, and micro-climate.

Madam Speaker, it is summertime, and if you enjoy a refreshing slice of watermelon this time of year, chances are you have the great work at this center to thank for it. The Columbia Basin is renowned for its delicious watermelons, and the center's researchers helped increase their production from 30-tons per acre under center-pivot irrigation to 70-tons per acre with drip irrigation and weed control. In the process, they made more efficient use of the water and decreased the amount of herbicide needed during production of the watermelon crop.

The center's researchers are in the middle of the battle against crop disease. Tuber worm has emerged as a threat to root crops in recent years. Late blight, the same fungus that caused the great potato famine, has resurfaced. Researchers are on the cutting of edge of identifying new methods to fight diseases that cost producers thousands of dollars each year to control.

And if all that work were not enough, researchers at the center are helping improve the quality of the country's food supply. This is one of the only centers of its kind in America with a molecular biologist working to increase the nutritional quality of our food.

The center's research is so valuable to the region that the many producers who benefit from its research return their thanks generously, donating over $1 million to the center in the past two decades. Growers also funded the building of two large insect houses at $40,000 each that facilitate research on which pests carry crop damaging diseases.

Today's challenges require innovative thinking and solutions. New crop varieties developed at the center help overcome the present challenges facing old crops. Many of the solutions that producers and individuals in the region see as major milestones are all in a day's work for the researchers of the center. As described by the station superintendent, Philip Hamm, ``Our staff are just doing their job, and looking for the next challenge.''

Madam Speaker, this center has played a vital role in helping farmers, ranchers and agricultural communities thrive on the sandy soils that have presented many challenges over the past 100 years. Today, the region served by the center is one of the most important agriculture production areas in the Northwest and produces some of the highest yielding, highest quality crops in the United States.

I congratulate Oregon State University's Hermiston Agricultural Research and Extension Center leadership, its board members, area farmers and ranchers, and the community on reaching this remarkable milestone. I am confident the center's next 100 years will be as successful as 1909-2009 has been.

I want to talk about a couple of things here involving this bill: process, cost, and language.

This is the 309 pages that were printed at 1:34 in the morning and submitted to the Rules Committee sometime around 2:49 this morning. Nobody--it's impossible--I can't imagine anybody's read this.

I've just discovered they change the hydro language so that--it used to say before 1992 it counted, now they have gone back 4 years. Somewhere in the middle of the night we have added 4 years of hydro as renewable. It's page after page after page of technical changes that have major, major impact.

There were nine committees this bill was referred to, and yet only one of them was allowed to have a markup on the bill, the Energy and Commerce Committee. The other eight waived. So a lot of this got put together in the dark of night, backroom deals, whatever you want to say, private conversations; but no committees held a hearing on this new bill, 309 pages, amending the 1,201 that are sitting there on the desk.

Costs. Look at fuel costs: $811 more for Oregonians in 2012. If you're a PacifiCorp customer in Oregon, you can expect in 2012 to pay 17.7 percent higher electricity costs. They have run the numbers according to the bill.

You want to talk about a massive new welfare program for energy? It's in here too. In fact, this energy tax refund, in effect, this proposed energy stamp bill, 16 times the current U.S. welfare program, the TANF program. Sixteen times. It's a whole new welfare program for energy.

If energy costs aren't going up on the rest of us, why do they have to have this? Because it does drive up energy costs. That's going to hurt small businesspeople. It's going to hurt families. It's going to cost jobs. And we don't know for sure what else it does because I can't imagine anybody on this floor has read every word of this bill that was filed at 2:49 a.m. in the Rules Committee and been able to juxtapose what's here against the 1,201 pages.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Madam Speaker, consistent with the House Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, to the best of my knowledge the request I have detailed below is (1) not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; and (2) not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark. As required by earmark standards adopted by the House Republican Conference, I submit the following information on a project I requested and was included in H.R. 2996--the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Account: National Park Service--Construction

Project Name: Crater Lake Visitor Education Center, Crater Lake National Park, Crater Lake, OR

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Crater Lake National Park Trust, PO Box 62, Crater Lake, OR 97604

Project Location: Crater Lake, Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 2996 appropriates $350,000 for the Crater Lake Visitor Education Center project. According to the requesting entity, this funding will be used by Crater Lake National Park for construction and renovation of the Crater Lake Visitor Education Center. Crater Lake National Park was created by President Theodore Roosevelt and is the sixth oldest National Park in America. Furthermore, Crater Lake is the deepest lake in America and holds the purest water in the world. This is a beneficial use of taxpayer funding because the Crater Lake Visitor Center will provide valuable educational opportunities for over 2,000 grade school students and around 500,000 other visitors who visit Crater Lake from throughout the United States and the World each year.

Madam Speaker, consistent with the House Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, to the best of my knowledge the requests I have detailed below are (1) not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; and (2) not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark. As required by earmark standards adopted by the House Republican Conference, I submit the following information on projects I requested and were included in H.R. 2647--The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010.

Account: Navy; Research, Development, Test & Evaluation; Line 3, Defense Research Sciences; PE #0601153N

Project Name: ONAMI Nanoelectronics, Nanometrology and Nanobiotechnology (N3I) Initiative

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity:

Portland State University; Oregon State University; University of Oregon; Oregon Nanosciences and Microtechnologies Institute

Portland State University

Portland, OR 97207

Project Location: Portland, OR; Corvallis, OR; Eugene, OR; Corvallis,