Floor Statements

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 was included in H.R. 2847--the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010.

Account: Department of Commerce, NOAA-ORF.

Project Name: Disease Reduction in Klamath River Salmon.

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon State University, 16 Memorial Union, Corvallis, OR 97331.

Project Location: Corvallis, Oregon and in the Klamath River Basin.

Description of Project: H.R. 2847 appropriates $600,000 for the Disease Reduction in Klamath River Salmon project. According to the requesting entity, this is a collaborative research plan involving Oregon State University, Humboldt State University, University of California--Davis, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Klamath River tribal agencies that will research management actions to reduce disease in natural juvenile salmon in the Klamath River of Oregon and California.

Account: Department of Justice, COPS Tech.

Project Name: Mobile Video Equipment.

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Umatilla County Sheriff, 4700 NW Pioneer Place, Pendleton, OR 97801.

Project Location: Pendleton, Oregon and Umatilla County.

Description of Project: H.R. 2847 appropriates $130,000 for the Umatilla County Sheriffs Office Mobile Video Equipment project. According to the requesting entity, this funding will be used to outfit up to 9 vehicles with video/audio recording systems; one archive server located in Pendleton, Oregon and a server at each satellite office in Hermiston and Milton-Freewater, Oregon.

Account: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs--Byrne.

Project Name: Rx for Saving Oregon Teens.

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon Partnership, 6443 SW Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy., Suite 200, Portland, OR 97221.

Project Location: Portland, Oregon.

Description of Project: H.R. 2847 appropriates $470,000 for the Rx for Saving Oregon Teens project. According to the requesting entity, this funding will be used to implement a statewide public education campaign addressing prescription drug abuse in Oregon.

Madam Speaker, consistent with the House Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, to the best of my knowledge the requests I have detailed below (1) are not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; and (2) are 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. 1105, The Omnibus Appropriations Act, FY 2009.

Account: USDA--Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service

Project Title: Grass Seed Cropping Systems for Sustainable Agriculture (OR, ID, WA)

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity:

Oregon State University, College of Agricultural Sciences, 138 Strand Hall, Corvallis, OR 97731

Project Location: Idaho, Oregon, and Washington

Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $313,000 for the Grass Seed Cropping Systems for Sustainable Agriculture project in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Oregon State University has confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for this project will be used cooperatively between research and extension faculty from the three states, scientists from the USDA's National Forage Seed Production Research Center, and USDA's Agriculture Research Service to maintain a sustainable grass seed cropping industry in the Pacific Northwest at a time when the grass seed industry faces some critical environmental and economic challenges including public pressure to phase out open-field burning.

Account: USDA--Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service

Project Title: Northwest Multi-commodity Marketing Special Research Grant

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity:

Oregon State University, College of Agricultural Sciences, 138 Strand Hall, Corvallis, OR 97731

Project Location: Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $244,000 for a special research grant program that enhances competitiveness and expands the economic value-added component in Oregon agricultural products through research and outreach in food processing, product development, business strategy, marketing, and consumer testing. Oregon State University has confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for this project will be used to conduct research to support food processing and food product development, investigate consumer perceptions of product quality and value, and evaluate marketing and food industry strategies.

Account: USDA--Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service

Project Title: Organic Cropping Research for the Northwest

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity:

Oregon State University, College of Agricultural Sciences, 138 Strand Hall, Corvallis, OR 97731

Project Location: Oregon and Washington

Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $140,000 to Organic Cropping Research for the Northwest. Oregon State University has confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for this project will be help expand the research, education, and extension activities at Oregon State University with a primary focus on the development and implementation of sustainable organic farming systems for higher rainfall locations in the Cascadia bioregion in the states of Oregon and Washington. Oregon's organic agriculture industry will benefit from research directed at problems facing organic commodities and, ultimately, enhance competitiveness of Oregon's organic agriculture products. In Oregon, 357 certified organic farms generate more than $52.1 million in organic products from approximately 59,200 certified acres. Oregon's strong agricultural infrastructure and unique climate make Oregon's agriculture uniquely positioned to grow dramatically in its market share of organic dairy and meat, tree fruits, specialty seed, berry crops, and processed and fresh market vegetables.

Account: USDA--Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service

Project Title: Potato Research (OR, ID, WA, and other states)

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity:

Oregon State University, College of Agricultural Sciences, 138 Strand Hall, Corvallis, OR 97731

Project Location: Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and other states

Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $1,037,000 for a research program which is operated jointly by an entity known as Tri- State, which includes: USDA-ARS, Washington State University, Oregon State University, and the University of Idaho. Oregon State

University has confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for this project will be split equally between the four Tri-State partners and used for research and development of new potato varieties. The Tri-State program is considered to be one of the most elite variety development programs in the world.

Account: USDA--Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service

Project Title: Regional Barley Genome Mapping (many states)

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity:

Oregon State University, College of Agricultural Sciences, 138 Strand Hall, Corvallis, OR 97731

Project Location: Many states

Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $471,000 to continue funding the United States Barley Genome Project (USBGP). Oregon State University has confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for this project will be used to continue the project's long-term goal of enhancing the profitability and sustainability of U.S. agriculture by achieving a complete understanding of the gene networks that determine economically important traits in barley. The rationale behind understanding gene networks is that knowledge regarding the number, location, sequence, expression, regulation, and interaction of genes will allow plant breeders to more efficiently develop barley varieties.

Account: USDA--Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service

Project Title: Northwest Center for Small Fruit Research

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon State University, College of Agricultural Sciences, 138 Strand Hall, Corvallis, OR 97731

Project Location: Idaho, Oregon, and Washington

Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $307,000 for the Northwest Center for Small Fruit Research. Oregon State University has confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for this project will be used to fund extension, education, and cooperative research activities on peer reviewed small fruits research project proposals that will enhance profitability and sustainability of the small fruits industry in the Pacific Northwest. This funding supports critical aspects of the center not supported by USDAARS funds.

Account: USDA--Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service

Project Title: Solutions to Environmental and Economic Problems (STEEP) (OR, ID, WA)

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon State University, College of Agricultural Sciences, 138 Strand Hall, Corvallis, OR 97731

Project Location: Oregon, Idaho, and Washington

Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $444,000 for Solutions to Environmental and Economic Problems (STEEP). Oregon State University has confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for this project will be used for this program which provides a base for an agricultural research and extension education partnership to address production and environmental issues in cereal cropping systems throughout the Pacific Northwest. The partnership with producers, industry, USDA-ARS, NRCS, conservation districts, and university research and extension personnel enhances programs on: conservation of soil quality; evaluation of reduced pesticide use and other alternatives for crop protection; management options that substitute for residue requirements in farm plans; and on-farm testing. General program objectives are: determining impact of farming practices on soil, water, and air quality; improving profitability of conservation farming systems; facilitating production of biofuels, increasing carbon sequestration and reducing greenhouse gases; developing crop varieties better suited to planting in conservation farming systems; identifying alternative crops for conservation farming systems in the PNW; increasing the no-till acreage in the PNW; and accelerating adoption of profitable conservation farming systems.

Account: Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Operations, Research and Facilities

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Oregon State University

Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon State University, Attn: Larry Curtis, Associate Dean, 138 Strand Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331,

Project Location: Corvallis, Oregon

Rep. Walden Statement for the Congressional Record H.R. 1105, April 2, 2009--Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $640,000 to research management actions to reduce disease (ceratomyxosis) in juvenile salmon in the Klamath River. Research will be conducted through controlled laboratory and field experiments. OSU has stated that all of the appropriated funds will go toward project coordination, laboratory and field studies, field assistance, and website development for information dissemination.

Account: Department of Justice; COPS; Law Enforcement Technology

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Medford, Oregon

Address of Requesting Entity: City of Medford, Attn: Bill Hoke, Dpty. City Manager 411 West 8th Street, Medford, Oregon

Project Location: Medford, Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $700,000 for the Jackson County, Oregon Consolidated 911 Dispatch Center. The project will consolidated Jackson County, Oregon's two existing 911/emergency dispatch centers into one facility which will improve coordination and interoperability among emergency response agencies, improve call processing times and decrease response times. The City of Medford has stated that the appropriated funds will go toward the purchase of dispatch consoles, computer equipment and software, costs associated with connectivity of current communications tower and new facility.

Account: Department of Justice; Office of Justice Programs; Byrne Discretionary Grants. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Oregon Health and Science University Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR 97239

Project Location: Portland, Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $200,000 to the Multidisciplinary Institute for Neuropsychiatric Diagnosis to develop evidence-based medical diagnosis and treatment for psychiatric disorders that may be triggered by use of methamphetamine. OHSU has stated that all of the appropriated funds will go toward salary for MD and PhD scientists, research equipment and the salary for a clinical coordinator.

Account: Department of Justice; OJP; Byrne Discretionary Grants

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Oregon Health and Sciences University

Address of Requesting Entity: Wasco County, Oregon, Attn: Steve Conover, Wasco Co Sheriffs Dpt. 511 Washington, Ste 102, The Dalles, Oregon

Project Location: Portland, Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $300,000 for the Wasco County, Oregon Interoperability 911 Center. The project will relocate the County's Emergency Operations Center and equip it with hardware that will provide additional data capacity and communications equipment that meets interoperability requirements of local, state and federal agencies. Wasco County, Oregon has stated that the appropriated funds will go toward relocation costs and the purchase of emergency communications equipment.

Account: EPA--STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project

Project Name: Milton-Freewater Stormwater Treatment Plant Construction Project

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity:

Umatilla County, Oregon Attn: Hulette M. Johnson, 216 SE 4th Street, Pendleton, OR 97801

Project Location: The City of Milton-Freewater, Oregon

Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $300,000 for the Milton-Freewater for Stormwater Treatment Plant Construction Project to be located in Milton-Freewater, Oregon. Umatilla County has confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for this project will be used by the City of Milton-Freewater to assist in development of storm water treatment system which will result in increased clean drinking water for the local community. Funds provided will enable the community to construct a holding pond to catch silt-laden storm and winter water run off which currently clogs the drainage system and deposits silt into drinking water wells.

Account: US Forest Service--Land Acquisition

Project Name: Columbia River Gorge Land Acquisition

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Columbia River Gorge Commission, Attn: Jill Arens, Executive Director, 1 Town & Country Square, 57 NE Wauna Avenue, White Salmon, WA 98672

Project Location: Columbia River Gorge, Oregon and Washington

Description of Project: H.R. 1105 appropriates $2 million for Columbia River Gorge Land Acquisitions in Oregon and Washington. The Columbia River Gorge Commission has confirmed in their justification that the appropriated funds for this project will be used by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to purchase those remaining parcels of land with signed options that were offered by landowners by March of 2004 under Section 8(o) of the National Scenic Area Act but never acquired by the USFS. The purchase of these remaining properties would finally fulfill the federal government's commitment to these individuals.

Account: Corps of Engineers Construction

Project Name: Columbia River Channel Improvements, OR and WA

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Columbia River Channel Coalition, Attn: Dave Hunt, Executive Director, PO Box 903, Clackamas,

Madam Speaker, I rise today to draw my colleagues' attention to a remarkable and historic athletic feat achieved by the Burns High School Hilanders wrestling teams of Harney County, Oregon.

On February 28, the Hilanders captured their eighth consecutive 3A state wrestling championship. The streak is unprecedented in the state and mark the first time in any sport, at any level, such an accomplishment has been achieved. These eight teams, their coaches, and their families are testament to the commitment to hard work that is pervasive throughout eastern Oregon.

The streak began way back in 2002. Since then, the Hilanders have captured 22 individual state titles, and some have won multiple championships, including Talon Hofman (2001 to 2004), Ben Cate (2003 to 2005), Abe Jacobs (2003 and 2004), and Joe Drinkwater (2008 and 2009).

In 2007, the Hilanders set a new team scoring record for all classifications when they scored 269.5 points at the state championship.

All athletic programs that enjoy longevity of success do so only with the guidance of good leaders. Bill Winn, Mark Hofman, Jeff Kloetzer, and Ray Cate have been tremendous coaches throughout the eight-year run.

Green Bay Packers coaching legend Vince Lombardi once said, ``Individual commitment to a group effort--that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.''

No doubt, the young men of the Hilanders wrestling program sacrificed more than others in exchange for their committed pursuit of such lofty goals. These wrestlers have spent untold hours running laps around the gymnasium, doing ``up-downs'' until they thought their lungs couldn't take anymore, challenging each other in thousands of take-down drills, and critiquing each other's ``first move off the bottom.''

They spent thousands of miles sitting on busses headed for the next contest. They watched their weight but made sure they were physically strong when the time came. They practiced, and practiced, and practiced again until the moves became automatic. Their many titles are proof of their devotion and sacrifice.

But titles aside, the lessons they learned about what it takes to be the very best are the keepsakes that will serve them well for the rest of their lives. The hardware they've earned for their success is, as they say, the icing on the cake.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Hilanders wrestling program and the Harney County community for their remarkable achievement. Their unprecedented streak is a reminder to us all of the value of dedication, perseverance, and good old fashioned hard work.

I rise in opposition to this rule. I'm trying to figure out what it is the majority fears about open debate, either in committee or on the floor.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Colorado, who's managing the rule, if you would like to tell me why no amendments were allowed.

Reclaiming my time; we are only talking maybe 5 minutes on an amendment. This bill has had no hearings in any committee in the House, correct?

Reclaiming my time; but you're not the substantive committee. Energy and Commerce is the substantive committee. Our committee was not allowed to have a hearing on this issue, including the ramifications of it, on this bill.

We had no opportunity to offer an amendment. You heard our ranking member, Mr. Barton, suggest there are alternatives that wouldn't cost the taxpayers enormous amounts of money.

Reclaiming my time; not on this bill. There was no hearing on this bill. We've had hearings along the way about this issue, but not on this bill before us today--at least no markup on this bill. So our only alternative to help the taxpayers prevent--who's going to loan us this money, by the way? $650 million more we're going to ask to borrow to pay for converter boxes. And yet, only half the money has been spent.

There's an affordable, efficient alternative we could have at least allowed the Members here to vote on that said, Change the accounting a bit, allow them to go ahead and move forward and issue the coupons as those expired, that aren't used, because not every coupon is being used. There's only a 52.5 redemption rate. Then that money will flow back in at the end.

Putting money in the stimulus means it's not available until April or May. Now you have got a June deadline. So even that money is not going to flow out there. I urge defeat of the rule. We can legislate in a much better way than this.

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield?

I don't believe the gentleman was a Member of the Congress when most of those hearings were held. So you wouldn't have had benefit of those hearings. But my question is: If they did all those hearings, why didn't they have a markup to fix it then, if this was such a problem? Was there a single markup on this bill in a substantive committee?

But the question here is, was there a single hearing or markup on this bill?

I thank my colleague from North Carolina.

To just set the record straight, to my colleague who just spoke, there was no hearing on this bill in committee. There was no markup on this bill in

committee. There has never been an opportunity to amend this bill on this floor or in committee. I serve on the committee, I serve on the subcommittee.

Further, if she's concerned about interoperability, then you free up the spectrum. Delay of transition to DTV means the analog transmitters here and the digital transmitters here--and they are both going. Until the analog is gone, the spectrum is not freed up for that interoperability she pleads for. Maybe if there was a hearing, she would better understand the bill.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

I want to talk to this measure. I think part of the frustration those of us on the Republican side of the aisle feel is this: We are being asked to truncate the time to debate this bill, which was already limited to no amendments under a closed rule, a bill that has never had a hearing in this House or before the Energy and Commerce Committee or the subcommittee.

The Republicans were completely denied the opportunity to offer any amendment at any time. Now I am trying to figure out how that's democracy in action and how that is change for a better day. And now we are being asked to basically cut it quick, be quiet, go back to our offices so they can go to the White House for a media show.

Let me talk to this bill. Delaying the DTV date from February 17 to June puts it right in the middle of hurricane season, tornado season, and all that. It doesn't open up the spectrum any sooner for law enforcement to deal with the issues that the public safety community identified 5 years to the day of 9/11. Five years before, they said, You have got to give us some more spectrum so we can have interoperability. That is back in 2001. We are that to here. Now we are going to delay it some more.

For broadcasters in my State of Oregon, they are going to get to pay $500,000 to $1 million more in energy costs to run two transmitters, when they should only, and had counted on, only running one. So to keep their analog--most likely, a tube-driven transmitter fired up--that will add 4 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere at a time when I thought the majority and others in this Congress wanted to do something about carbon emissions.

So, it will cost $1 million, it will cost jobs. You will burn more energy. They will have to have engineers keep old transmitters hobbled together. We had a transmitter across the river in Washington State, an analog transmitter, burn up 2 weeks ago. Their analog transmitter. It's off the air. They switched. And they haven't had any real pushback from the community.

``The provisions in this new bill, according to Communications Daily,'' that purport to provide a safety valve for public safety agencies that want to make use of the 700 megahertz spectrum before the revised deadline are worse than provisions that raised public safety objections,'' industry officials said Friday. ``This bill is totally of no value to public safety,'' said an industry official.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put this report from Communications Daily into the Record so that Americans and our colleagues can see this.

Under the bill, a public safety agency can go on the air if a TV station vacates its channel in compliance with the various rules. And yet, it's so complicated in here, that isn't going to happen. We had Members say, Gee, we have got to do something to help public safety. This just delays that.

So you're going to burn more power, you're going to cost jobs. Then, most Americans, 93, 94, probably pushing up higher than that, have already made the conversion, that we know of. A million people have come off the waiting list for the coupons in the last 4 weeks.

A simple change in the law to allow budget authority of $250 million to NTIA would allow them to flow these coupons out. The stimulus bill spends $600 million more on the coupon conversion program, and yet that money isn't going to be out the door until April at the soonest.

So I am trying to figure out how if you move this to the middle of June, and you don't get the money out the door until April or May. I am not sure you have solved the coupon problem.

In closing, the Fraternal Order of Police, who represent a couple hundred thousand law enforcement officers, are opposed to moving this date. And so am I, Mr. Chairman. I think it's unnecessary and it's expensive.

[From Communications Daily, Feb. 2, 2009]

House To Vote on DTV Delay Bill, but Opposition Remains

(By Anne Veigle and Howard Buskirk)

The House is set to vote on a revised DTV transition delay

bill this week, following unanimous Senate passage Thursday

night. The bill would set a new analog cutoff date of June 12

instead of Feb. 17. The House is expected to take the bill up

under different rules than last week, when an earlier version

failed to secure a two-thirds majority needed to suspend the

normal rules. Opposition remains among Republican leaders,

who could still try to block the bill, but Democrats believe

they have enough votes for passage.

``I am hopeful they will pass this bill so we can send it

to President Obama,'' said Senate

Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., in a

statement after the Senate passed an amended version (S-352)

of its previous bill (S-328). ``I have no doubt this is going

to go through,'' Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said on C-

SPAN's The Communicators, which airs Saturday on C-SPAN and

Monday on C-SPAN 2. Klobuchar, who co-sponsored the

Rockefeller bill, said the converter box coupon program's

ballooning wait list ignited political momentum to delay the

transition. ``We thought let's give this new administration

some time to fix the problems'' with the coupons, she said.

The technical changes in S-352 clarify that households can

get replacement coupons for those that expired without being

redeemed once budget authority approval of new money for the

converter box program is granted. House and Senate economic

stimulus bills each propose $650 million for the converter

box program, and there has been no challenge to that proposal

so far.

Until the money is appropriated, the converter box program

will continue to grapple with a backlog of coupon requests.

S-328 would have allowed emergency funds to kick in

immediately. S-352 also makes clear that broadcasters wishing

to shut down analog operations before June 12 can do so, and

in cases where stations have made the switch, public safety

can begin using the vacated spectrum.

Public Safety Concerns

The provisions in the new bill that purport to provide a

safety valve for public safety agencies that want to make use

of the 700 MHz spectrum before the revised deadline are worse

than provisions that raised public safety objections,

industry officials said Friday. Public safety officials

declined comment.

``The bill is totally of no value to public safety,'' said

an industry official: ``Some of these things could be fixed,

but they would just require the House to vote again and the

Senate to vote again.'' Public safety concerns have figured

prominently in Hill debate. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in

particular had said he couldn't support the legislation

unless sponsors addressed public safety concerns.

Public safety officials had objected to a requirement in

the original version of the bill which passed the Senate

which required them to file an application to make use of the

700 MHz spectrum they'll get anyway after the transition.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., proposed an alternative that

doesn't require public safety agencies to file an

application. But it does require agencies to work within a

relatively arcane and little utilized section of the FCC's

rules--section 90.545--before they can use the airwaves.

Under the bill, a public safety agency can go on the air if

a TV station vacates its channel in compliance with both a

Dec. 31, 2007, FCC order and section 90.545 of the FCC's

rules. But the TV station must air notices for at least 30

days prior to its shut down. Over the past week, numerous TV

stations have filed requests to shut down by airing notices

for fewer than 30 days. Under the legislation, the FCC would

have no discretion to grant the requests.

In addition, under section 90.545 a public safety agency

could go on the air only if its transmitters are sufficiently

far away from those TV stations still on the adjacent

channels--public safety agencies can't use the spectrum just

because one station shuts down. But the separation

requirement would be difficult to meet. As an alternative,

the public safety agencies could negotiate agreements with TV

stations, but they would have to submit the applications for

FCC approval. A prior version of the legislation required the

FCC to rule within 14 days. The Senate-passed version has no

such requirement, and there's no requirement in the FCC rule.

In addition, public safety agencies can submit engineering

studies, but again, the FCC would have to approve the

studies, and there's no timetable for a FCC ruling. ``They

tried to fix something, but the fix actually made it worse,''

an industry official said.

Meanwhile, House Republicans continue to oppose the delay.

``Moving back the date would put a financial burden on

industry that will be hard for it to swallow in this

difficult economic climate,'' Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla.,

ranking member of the House Telecom Subcommittee, wrote in a

Friday Washington Times Op-Ed. Stearns has co-sponsored a

bill with Commerce ranking member Joe Barton, R-Texas, that

would keep the February cutoff date while providing $250

million for the converter box coupon program.

But Democratic leadership hasn't responded to Barton's

plan, believing it can pass the extension bill despite

Republicans' surprise blockage last week (CD Jan 29 p1).

Thirteen Democrats voted with Republicans in Wednesday's 258-

168 vote. Bypassing the rules requires a super-majority vote.

But 22 Republicans joined with Democrats in favor of moving

the DTV delay bill. Republicans may try to kill the bill by

making a ``motion to recommit,'' which, if approved, would

send the bill back to committee. But a straight majority vote

is required to do that, and most observers believe Democrats

have a sufficient margin to defeat that procedure. The bill

will go before the Rules Committee Tuesday to determine time

limits and rules for amending the bill on the floor, Hill and

industry officials said.

Mr. Speaker, let's get this down.

On November 6, NTIA notified us that they may have a problem with money. At the end of December, they said they have got to start a waiting list. And today is February 4. So you had December, January, and now February, 3 months to work this out, and there was a simple accounting fix that could have been done early on that would have solved this problem. So at a minimum we could have addressed this earlier had the majority wanted to. Right now, our biggest concern, frankly, should be with law enforcement and our emergency services.

Five years to the day before America was attacked on September 11, 2001, the law enforcement community said: We need you to free up this spectrum, make this transition, and get it done; because if we have an attack or a problem in this country, we don't have the interoperable capability to communicate. And, unfortunately, we will learn the sad, tragic, and deadly reality of that failure to communicate as rescue workers tried to do their jobs in New York City.

So all this motion to commit says is that let's have the FCC make sure that we are not going to further hamper our emergency services personnel and their ability to have interoperable communications, so that fire and police can talk to each other when there is an emergency. That is all this says: FCC, make sure this gets done right; and, if there is a problem, move these stations so that we put the safety of our firefighters, the safety of our police first and the safety of our communities. Because, Lord knows, we may be the subject of another attack.

We all hope that does not occur. But if it does, there will be another commission that says: How come you guys waited? Why didn't you do what we told you to do when we had the last commission, the 9/11 Commission? Why didn't you listen to the public service folks 5 years before the attack on 9/11? Why didn't you step up and do your job?

There is a simple accounting fix that initially there was reportedly even bipartisan for, until the transition team said, oh, no, let's just move the date. Then everything crumbled, and that is where we are today.

Last night my wife and I were watching TV, and here comes the ad on Comcast that says that: Congress has passed a law that says February 17, 2009, the analogue signal goes away, and you just subscribe to us or you do this converter box.

We are still having these folks advertise as of last night what the law is today. People, are confused. You think confusion? They are still being told, here is what you are supposed to do. And this is why people don't trust the government, because you get everybody marching, doing what they are supposed to do, the broadcasters, the industries that supply the boxes, everything else, and then we move the goalposts. And I don't think that makes sense. In this case, it doesn't have to happen. We can work through this process. You could make a simple accounting change; you would be $250 million just authorized and you get the coupons out the door.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

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

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

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

Wendell Wyatt guided bills through Congress that left lasting imprints all over our great State of Oregon, including bills that established the Tualatin Reclamation Project in Washington County, the Columbia River 40-foot shipping channel, Lincoln City's Cascade Head Scenic Area, and a bill authorizing the purchase of ranch lands along the Snake River for public recreation.

He will be missed; he will never be forgotten.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this spending bill that is before us.

I spent 12 hours in the Energy and Commerce Committee where we marked up our portion of this legislation, and I think there were some real amazing things in this bill that maybe some people on this floor don't know about. I was going to ask the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Halvorson) about it because she mentioned insurance. In here is a provision for the taxpayers in my district who are still working to support insurance payments up to 65 percent for those who may lose their jobs.

In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we passed an amendment in a bipartisan way to say that millionaires who made a million bucks last year, you don't have to have my taxpayers support your COBRA payments. Unfortunately, somewhere along the mystical way that this bill came to the floor, that bipartisan amendment got stripped out. So now you could be Madoff, I suppose, and get your COBRA paid for.

There is a recoupling provision in here on energy that I think is one of the most perverse things I have ever heard of; that if my constituents invest in energy conservation in their homes to reduce their energy consumption, which is good for the environment and good for their wallets, if you vote for this, you are going to vote to say the utility companies can raise their rates to make up the lost revenue. So this puts utility company revenues ahead of consumers in States, Massachusetts, Oregon, the other 48 States and the territories. You are going to encourage them on the one hand to conserve on energy, and on the other hand you are going to grant this new authority so the utility companies can raise their electricity or gas rates.

This is an enormous borrowing bill. This is making the Federal Government the next subprime lender. Why else is it for the first time I believe in our country's history there is now an insurance product available on U.S. securities? Why? Because people are starting around the world to say we are not so sure about America.

I am trying to figure out, and maybe the gentleman on the other side of the aisle can answer, who is going to loan us this money? Have we ever gone to the market for $2 trillion to $3 trillion?

I thank my ranking subcommittee chairman for the time.

Let me get right at it. The 1996 law that this law replaced said that when the marketplace had 85 percent of households with one television that could receive digital, this transition could occur.

The law that we passed a couple of years ago said, no, we are going to work this a little differently. We will set a hard date, we will make coupons available to do all of this. Currently, 94.3 percent of American households have a television that receives digital or that has the ability to receive digital signal.

So remember the old law that we updated said 85 percent could make this change today, or 94 percent. Only exclusively over-the-air homes without a digital division or converter box are at risk of losing all television service. Now, again, Nielsen, the rating service, says there are 3.4 million exclusively over-the-air homes, and already we have sent 13.5 million coupons to 13.5 million of those homes, leaving 800,000 exclusively over-the-air households that have not yet received the coupons.

Approximately 600,000 of them, however, are on the waiting list. This all gets down to a couple hundred thousand people. This could simple easily be solved by simply changing the accounting rules and allowing NTIA to go ahead and send out those coupons.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to include for the Record letters from television stations in Oregon who point out that this delay will cost them upwards of $1 million in added energy costs at a time when they are having to lay off staff who do news coverage and other things because now they are going to get saddled with this burden, $500,000 to $1 million.

January 8, 2009.

Hon. Greg Walden,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Greg, I hope this note finds you well. This letter is

in reference to the possible delay of the DTV transition date

for broadcasters from the scheduled date of February 17,

2009. Changing the date at this time would unravel a

tremendous amount of work done by broadcasters to educate

consumers about DTV, and most likely do more harm than good.

Attached find a list of issues from our Director of

Engineering, Karl Sargent, related to the possible change of

dates.

We hope you have success in keeping the date we have all

been working towards, and please do not hesitate to let me

know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Bob Wise,

Vice President/General Manager,

Madam Speaker, It is with great pride and gratitude that I rise today to pay special tribute to an outstanding public servant and community leader from Oregon's Second Congressional District, Crook County Judge Scott Cooper. Scott has chosen to conclude his service as county judge at the end of this month, and I would like to share with our colleagues some background on this special leader.

Judge Cooper was elected to his post in November 2000, and has served two terms in office. Before taking office as county judge, Scott was a member of the Prineville City Council, serving from 1997-2000.

The position of county judge triggers memories of Oregon's great frontier history, but the role is not one of living in the past. Judge Cooper's colleagues will all tell you one thing definite about him: he gets things done. Shortly after coming to office and learning that the historic county courthouse had been without hot water for years, Judge Cooper decided he was going to get that fixed. Naysayers told him that it had been tried before, but it would cost too much and couldn't be done. A call to a local plumber and a mere $20 later, folks realized the Judge wasn't one to take no for an answer. This isn't the only example. Technologically speaking, he brought Crook County into the 21st Century. When Judge Cooper came into office, many recall that the Crook County system of government had many moving parts. Thirty different departments worked separately of each other with little formal interaction. Without this formality among the departments and residents, county administration and budgeting tended to be a little chaotic. Judge Cooper's vision led to a computer network being created so departments could interact and set up a county Web site where residents could keep track of county services and business. Reflecting Scott's core beliefs that public service is about fiscal responsibility and making customer service a priority, Crook County now works as one body for the betterment of the whole.

Judge Cooper has served not only Crook County well, but has looked out for the interests of central Oregon and the State as a whole in a wide variety of positions during his

tenure in office. With a flair for fiscal responsibility and innovative management, he is recognized as a leader throughout Oregon on transportation, health care, and economic development matters. He served as treasurer of the Association of Oregon Counties. He is a two- term member of the Oregon State Housing Council. He twice served on the Connect Oregon 1 project selection committee and served as a member of the Governor's Task Force on county payments relief In 2006, he accompanied Governor Ted Kulongoski as an official delegate representing Oregon counties on the Governor's Trade Mission to Korea and Japan. He has also served as chair of the Central Oregon Community Investment Board of Directors and the Accountable Behavioral Health Alliance, and as a board member of Mosaic Medical, a regional community-based health care system serving low-income, under-insured families and individuals. He served as vice chair for the Economic Development for Central Oregon Advisory Board and two terms on the Central Oregon Area Transportation Committee. As you can see, Judge Cooper has never let much grass grow beneath his feet.

Judge Cooper's dedication to his community and state has not gone unnoticed. He is the past recipient of the State of Oregon's Economic Development Professional of the Year Award, the Economic Development for Central Oregon Public Sector of the Year, the Association of Oregon Counties Outstanding Service Award, the University of Oregon's Friend of Education Award and the Crook County High School ``Pardner'' Award.

Judge Cooper has been strongly supported by his family and specifically his wife, Bend attorney Laura Craska Cooper, and their three wonderful daughters. Scott is an outstanding father and a terrific advocate for today's youth. In addition to his family regularly hosting foreign exchange students, he likes to keep kids involved in government by delivering special talks in local schools and giving class tours at the Crook County Courthouse.

In 1857, George H. Williams, a delegate to Oregon's constitutional convention, argued about county judges, ``Give us one competent man to administer the affairs of the county, whose compensation would enable him to devote his time to his duties, and we would have a much more satisfactory and economical administration of county affairs.''

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to recognize my good friend, Judge Scott Cooper, who has proven he is that one competent man, and laud him for his years of dedicated public service, his numerous contributions to community and for his strong character as a citizen of Crook County, Oregon. Scott's leadership for the county will be sorely missed, but he is a young and energetic man with many great years ahead of him and I look forward to his continued involvement in other leadership capacities in Oregon.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of our colleagues in Congress to a special leader in Oregon who for many years has been a tremendous public servant, citizen, and champion of the forest products industry, Mr. Craig Hanneman. Craig is currently the President of the Oregon Forest Industries Council (OFIC) and has announced his plans to retire early in 2009. Before this Congress adjourns for the year, I wanted to share some thoughts about what a special individual Craig is and the positive impact he has made on so many Oregonians.

Craig Hanneman was born and raised in Salem, the capital city of Oregon. He graduated from South Salem High School in 1967 and Oregon State University in 1972. Craig was a phenomenal All-American defensive end on OSU's football team, where he played under legendary coach Dee Andros, was team captain, and later inducted into OSU's Hall of Fame. This success led to Craig realizing every player's dream of being drafted into and then achieving success in the National Football League where he played for the Pittsburgh Steelers and New England Patriots. After years of devout training and extreme physical and mental endurance on the gridiron, Craig Hanneman didn't exactly coast into the next chapter of his professional life when his football career concluded.

Craig owned and managed a 200 acre farm and forest operation in Polk County, Oregon for seven years after his NFL career, where he honed his expertise in the agricultural and natural resource arena. Craig was elected County Commissioner of Polk County in 1985, and his determination and inclusive ways were instrumental in eliminating an inherited county budget deficit and establishing a $1 million reserve fund without levying new taxes. Many Oregonians took notice of Craig's talents and effectiveness during his tenure as Commissioner, and this led in 1989 to Craig becoming the first Administrator of the new Oregon Sweet Cherry Commission. Agriculture and Natural Resources are the backbone of Oregon's vast rural areas, and during this time Craig became widely known and highly respected for his leadership skills and integrity. In 1990, Craig accepted the position of Government Affairs Manager at Willamette Industries, a historic, global forest products company founded in Dallas, Oregon in 1906. I was a member of the Oregon legislature and first began to work on issues with Craig then, and I am very fortunate that a great friendship followed.

Throughout 12 years at Willamette Industries, 2 years at the Weyerhaeuser Company (which bought Willamette Industries in 2002), and 5 years at OFIC, Craig has achieved a tremendous list of accomplishments and established a sterling reputation throughout Oregon and his industry nationally as a highly effective and inspiring leader of great integrity. Craig is the forest products industry's chief policy leader and political moral compass in Oregon, and his leadership has guided many very important and complex policy decisions. He always champions science over politics, and has a keen sense of when to hold firm. Craig's successes and personal attributes are simply too numerous to list so I thought sharing a few reflections I solicited from some of Craig's industry colleagues would best reveal the outstanding individual he is.

Paulette Pyle of Oregonians for Food & Shelter says ``Craig Hanneman is the glue that holds the natural resource industry in Oregon together. He approaches every challenge with extensive and sincere thought, and is upright and honorable in every respect. He is the ultimate gentleman professional.'' Rick Sohn of Lone Rock Timber Management Company says ``Craig is a peacemaker and is inclusive of other interests in forestry. He knows who his friends and allies are and brings us all together, and has created so many alliances that serve us well. He also knows his professional adversaries and does not cross the line with them.'' Allan Foutch of Miami Corporation Tree Farm says ``Craig has always been a man of his word, and whatever he does, he makes sure it is the right thing to do.'' Dave Ivanoff of Hampton Affiliates says ``Craig's business know-how, keen intellect, uncanny political instincts and incredible effectiveness in dealing with elected officials from both sIdes of the political spectrum have greatly contributed to OFIC's reputation as being one of the most effective trade associations in the nation.''

Madam Speaker, as you can see, Craig Hanneman is a special leader. I would be remiss, however, if I didn't note that Craig is also a great family man. Craig and his wife, Kathy, an educator, have been married for 34 years. Together they have raised three outstanding and successful children. Molly is a public servant here in our nation's capital, Paul is an Army Staff Sergeant serving his second tour in Iraq, and Annie is a junior at Oregon State University. They are as proud of their husband and father as he is of them.

My colleagues, please join me in thanking Craig Hanneman for all he has done for his community, state and nation. When Craig retires from full-time leadership in the forest products industry, he will be sorely missed. But I can say with confidence he will continue for many years to dedicate himself to his community and state as he always has, and I look forward to as many years of continued great friendship with him.

Madam Speaker, consistent with the House Republican leadership's policy on earmarks, to the best of my knowledge the request I have detailed below (1) is not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; and (2) is 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. 2638, The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.

Account: Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation--Defense-Wide.

Legal Name of Requesting Entities: Oregon Institute of Technology; Portland State University; University of Oregon; Worksystems, Inc. (a non-profit Workforce Development Board established by the 1998 Workforce Investment Act and recognized by the U.S. Department of Labor).

Address of Requesting Entities: Oregon Institute of Technology, 3201 Campus Drive, Klamath Falls, OR 97601; Portland State University, 2121 SW Fourth Avenue, Unitus Building, 6th Floor, Portland, OR 97027; University of Oregon, Charles H. Lundquist College of Business, 1208 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403; and Worksystems, Inc., 111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1150, Portland, OR 97204.

Description of Project: The Northwest Manufacturing Initiative confirms that it will use this funding for supporting applied engineering and sustainable supply innovation and research, workforce training programs and outreach and training for youth and young adults in order to increase the Northwest region's supply of

skilled, work-ready employees. In order to carry out the previously stated objectives, Northwest Manufacturing Initiative has provided the following budget and funding breakdown for the $1,600,000 provided for the project in H.R. 2638: $600,000 for Portland State University; $250,000 for the University of Oregon; $250,000 for the Oregon Institute of Technology; $360,000 for workforce training and skills integration; $40,000 for youth and young adult outreach; and $100,000 for Defense Logistics Agency estimated processing fee.

Account: Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation--Army.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: University of Oregon.

Address of Requesting Entity: Attn: Rich Linton, Vice President for Research, University of Oregon, 203 Johnson Hall, Eugene, OR 97403.

Description of Project: The University of Oregon confirms that this funding will be used for the Brain, Biology and Machine Applied Research initiative's (BBMI) applied research phase and will focus primarily on research and development related to neurorehabilitation. In particular, the University of Oregon confirms that BBMI will investigate neuroplasticity aimed at developing, evaluating and optimizing a new generation of intervention techniques for assisted and prosthetic devices and integration. In order to carry out the previously stated objectives, the University of Oregon has provided the following budget and funding breakdown for the $1,600,000 provided for the project in H.R. 2638: $460,000 for equipment; $1,050,000 for research; and $90,000 for public outreach/education.

Account: Army National Guard.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Oregon Military Department.

Address of Requesting Entity: Oregon Military Department, Attn: Installations Division, 1776 Militia Way, P.O. Box 14350, Salem, OR 97309-5047.

Project Location: The Dalles, Oregon.

Description of Project: H.R. 2638 appropriates $682,000 for design of The Dalles Readiness Center (Armory), a 35,355-square-foot facility to support administrative and training functions for Company A(-) of the 3-116 Rifle Cavalry, with adequate classroom and administrative space for training and operations for homeland security, antiterrorism, and force protection. The Oregon Military Department has stated that all of the $682,000 appropriated funds will go towards design of The Dalles Readiness Center.

Account: Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation--Army.

Legal Name of Requesting Entities: Oregon State University (on behalf of the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnology Institute (ONAMI), a collaboration between the University of Oregon, Oregon State University, and Portland State University).

Address of Requesting Entities: Attn: John M. Cassady, Vice President for Research, Oregon State University, 314 Rogers Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331.

Description of Project: The requesting entity confirms that this funding will be used by the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnology Institute (ONAMI) Miniature Tactical Energy Systems Development project. It will be used for research and development to miniaturize a wide range of important tactical energy systems including soldier power systems and advanced cooling units for forward deployed operations. In order to carry out the previously stated objectives, ONAMI has provided the following budget and funding breakdown for the $2,400,000 provided for the project in H.R. 2638: $1,020,000 for equipment; $1,255,000 for research; and $125,000 for industry and community outreach.

Account: Air Force; Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: University of Oregon (on behalf of the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnology Institute (ONAMI) which consists of the University of Oregon, Oregon State University, and Portland State University).

Address of Requesting Entity: Attn: Rich Linton, Vice President for Research, 203 Johnson Hall, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403.

Description of Project: H.R. 2638 has appropriated $4,000,000 for the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnology Institute (ONAMI) Safer Nanomaterials and Nanomanufacturing Initiative. In order to carry out the objectives of this project, ONAMI has provided the following budget and funding breakdown for the $4,000,000 provided for the project in H.R. 2638: $1,200,000 for equipment; $2,200,000 for research; $400,000 for industry and community outreach; and $200,000 for industry collaboration.

The ONAMI Safer Nanomaterials and Nanomanufacturing Initiative develops inherently safer and greener nanomaterials and nanomanufacturing methods, which directly impact the military's need for high performance materials that do not emit unintended wastestreams or material hazards. Three general areas of activity included within the Initiative are: (1) rational design of safer and greener materials based upon unique properties found at the nanoscale, (2) systematic assessment of the biological impacts of engineered nanomaterials, and (3) development of technology for high volume manufacturing and application of high-performance nanomaterials. Examples of nanomaterials and manufacturing of importance for military technology include nanoelectronics and nanophotonics, thermoelectric coolers, medical diagnostics and therapeutics, drinking water purification and environmental monitoring & remediation systems.

The ONAMI Safer Nanomaterials and Safer Nanomanufacturing Initiative cost share includes: state funding of approximately $2.23 million for research activities; private funding of over $2 million (cash and in- kind) from Hewlett-Packard, Invitrogen, FEI, and companies involved in related research efforts; and peer-reviewed federal awards and competitive awards from foundations, including the Keck Foundation, worth several million dollars.

Account: Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation--Navy.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Portland State University (on behalf of the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnology Institute (ONAMI), a collaboration between the University of Oregon, Oregon State University, and Portland State University).

Address of Requesting Entity: John Carruthers, Portland State University, 1719 SW 10th Ave., Portland, OR 97201.

Description of Project: The requesting entity confirms that this funding will be used by the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnology Institute (ONAMI) Nanoelectronics and Nanometrology Initiative. This funding will be used for supporting collaborative research with the Western Institute for Nanoelectronics, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) to generate new applications such as nanoelectronic devices to address the end of Moore's Law scaling, advanced solar cells, nanoscale chemical imaging for catalysis improvements in areas such as bioremediation and ethanol production, nanoscale biosensors for point-of-care health management, and biological cell imaging and measurement capabilities. In order to carry out the previously stated objectives, ONAMI has provided the following budget and funding breakdown for the $4,000,000 provided for the project in H.R. 2638: $1,200,000 for equipment; $2,525,000 for research; and $275,000 for industry and community outreach.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to share my pride in an exceptional family agricultural operation that is celebrating 100 years of quality, excellence, and responsible citizenship: the Parsons family and their Hillcrest Orchard in the heart of the Rogue Valley in southern Oregon. The Rogue Valley is known worldwide for its natural scenic beauty, its productive land, its ideal climate, and its coveted outdoor lifestyle. Hillcrest Orchard is in harmony with, and takes its inspiration from, the unique attributes of the Rogue Valley.

Hillcrest Orchard has been proudly operated by the Parsons family since its founding on July 13, 1908 by Reginald H Parsons and Maude Bemis Parsons. One of the oldest continuously-owned family orchards in the Rogue Valley, Hillcrest has long grown some of the region's finest fruit and produce. Four generations have worked tirelessly to maintain a high standard of quality and to operate always in ways responsible to the environment. Philanthropy and service to the community have been hallmarks of the Parsons family throughout Hillcrest's 100 year history.

Eleven grandchildren of Reginald and Maude are shareholders of Hillcrest: John Day, Hugh Brady, Judson Parsons, George Parsons, Reg Parsons, Geoffrey Tootell, Nancy McDonald, Diana Parsons, Natalie Oliver, Alice Petrich, and Cynthia Parsons. Currently, a fourth generation is involved in Hillcrest and the plan is for members of that generation to assume active management and further the well-established tradition of excellence and service.

As you can imagine, Madam Speaker, over the last 100 years, there have been many challenges in conducting successful orchard operations, but the Parsons family never let economic or natural disasters deter them. During the Depression and World War II, the family retained their employees and kept the fruit trees in healthy condition. By 1938, Reginald Parsons had gradually removed all of the apple trees and replaced them with pears, since the latter were more profitable. As the older pear trees declined in production, workers replaced them with new stock. Today, some of the orchard's earliest pear trees remain standing, producing Hillcrest's famous ``century pears.''

Not only has the Parsons family preserved their rich agricultural legacy, but also, through their stewardship, 11 buildings on the property of Hillcrest Orchard are now listed in the National Register of Historic Places. My colleagues, I have spent much time at Hillcrest Orchard and I can attest that it is truly a jewel in a very beautiful part of the country. It is a beautiful and welcoming place to visit, and their products are second to none. Hillcrest Orchard today remains very true to its century-old proud heritage of quality and innovation. What was once on the outskirts of Medford, Oregon is now surrounded by residential and commercial development, yet Hillcrest continues to operate in environmentally sound ways that makes it a model neighbor to the community. Hillcrest Orchard is dedicated to conserving the land for the health of the community and for future generations.

The most recent development at Hillcrest is the award-winning Roxy Ann Winery, featuring a charming tasting room, well-groomed grounds, musical entertainment, and social events. The planting of Hillcrest's vineyard began in 1997 with Merlot and Cabernet grapes. Hillcrest has expanded its selection of varietals along with acreage. Currently, 14 commercial varieties are grown at Roxy Ann's vineyards, including Bordeaux and Rhone grapes that flourish in the Rogue River Valley's warm climate and have thrived in similar climates and soils in Europe for hundreds of years. Local shallow clay soils help the vines concentrate the flavors in the fruit rather than producing huge vines. The viticulture and wine-making team at Roxy Ann is constantly evaluating varieties suited to this unique site.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, I take great pride in the last century of the Parson's family dedication to excellence at Hillcrest Orchard, and I ask you to join me in congratulating them for this significant feat and wishing them well as they enter their second century of exemplary business and service to the Rogue Valley. They have the tradition and the family dedication to make the next 100 years even more productive than the last. The Parsons family represents what is great about American agriculture and American families, and they will continue to give their customers and their community the very best.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

I appreciate that, because I appreciate her comment about rising above partisanship. I guess what troubles us on this side of the aisle is we are being denied any opportunity to even offer a bipartisan amendment to this bill, for example on the county roads and schools issue.

I wonder, I would like to ask the gentlewoman, would she be willing to allow us on the Republican side to offer a single amendment, any amendment to this bill that was just provided to us at 9:43 this morning? That would sure go a long way toward bridging the gap that seems to be down the center aisle.

Would the gentlewoman be willing to work with us on allowing us any opportunity to amend this bill?

I thank my friend from California for his leadership in the Rules Committee and his steadfast support for rural community schools. Even though you don't necessarily represent a rural district, you have certainly shown your interest in my State and in helping out.

I guess one of the issues that arises today, it is sort of hard to figure this

floor anymore and the Democrat majority, because the Democrat major lectured us in the Rules Committee last night and down here on the floor all day, saying we are not going to put rural schools reauthorization funding in the $60 billion tax extenders bill because it is not paid for, and we are not going to do this and we are not going to do that. So they raised $60 billion in taxes to cut $60 billion in taxes. So that was the reason then, not paid for.

Now we have dropped upon us a bill that most of us are just getting to see for the first time that is at least 46 pages long that spends $60 billion. $60 billion. I guess we will borrow more money from China to do it. And I don't see a single offset in here.

I would ask if the gentlewoman for Tampa would yield to a question. Is there a single offset in here to offset any of this $60 billion?

I thank the gentleman, because clearly we weren't going to get the answer, and I will give it to you. There are no offsets here. There are no offsets here, it's $60 billion in spending, which apparently is okay for the Democrat majority to do after 2:15 in the afternoon in Washington, D.C., but earlier we were told we couldn't fund a 100 year-old commitment to rural counties and school districts because there wasn't an offset. That was this morning when they dealt with the tax extender.

I will tell you what I hear when I go home: Why does the Federal Government make promises it can't keep? Why does it start new programs when it doesn't take care of the programs it has in place?

This is a real-time perfect example. This program, identified on page 12 of this bill, would allocate $3 billion for this green school program. Now, I am actually one of the cochairs of the Renewable Energy Caucus. I believe firmly in renewable energy, I am a fan of it.

There is probably more renewable energy in my district than anywhere in the State of Oregon, and the State of Oregon is about to be leader in the country in wind energy. All of that is good. Conservation is good. I believe in it fully.

But what happens here is you are starting a new program for $3 billion, and you are throwing over the cliff the people in rural America, the 4,400 counties, 600 school districts in 42 States who had a commitment with this Federal Government, dating back 100 years, where there are forested lands, that revenues would be shared, and that the Federal Government would be a good partner, a good neighbor.

That's why Theodore Roosevelt, when he created the great forest reserves, said the only way they will continue to survive and thrive is if the local communities are brought into the process. For my colleagues who may be from the east coast, understand this is a map of the United States. It shows Federal landownership.

Look at how much is owned by the Federal Government in the western States versus the eastern States. If you had 55 percent of your State owned by the Federal Government, and it was in forests that you, the Congress, are refusing to allow proper management of, this is what you end up with. This is after the Egli fire in 2007. These children are out where the fire burned. In the southern part of my district today, there's 500,000 acres that are ready to do this, because they are dead, in our Federal forests.

The legislation that I had hoped to get a bipartisan opportunity to offer a bipartisan amendment in a House that should be bipartisan would restore the county Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act, a part of which allows for collaborative organizations, including environmental groups, to work with local communities to develop plans to get in and manage the forests so we don't burn them all up. If you care about greenhouse gas emissions, as I know many on that side of the aisle does, stop allowing your forests to burn up.

I would have, if given the opportunity, substituted the $3 billion that you are going to send out to every State in the country, and especially to areas that I recall Jake Abramoff used to lobby for, the Mariana Islands and everywhere else, I would have substituted that $3 billion and put it in place to keep a pledge and promise and commitment to the rural communities in this country and their schools and their sheriffs' departments and their search and rescue departments, and their teachers.

Because, you see, we have got to quit in this Congress starting new programs and not taking care of the old ones. We have got to stop breaking promises and commitments to the people of this country. It could have started here. When I hear, oh, gee, I wish this were all bipartisan, and I wish that, you know, process didn't matter, I've just got to call it the way I see it.

I thank my good friend and colleague from Washington State's Fourth District, who has been a real partner in this effort to try and reauthorize and fully fund not only our Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, but also to support additional funding for payment in lieu of taxes, because, you see, both of those are actual commitments that this Federal Government has had to rural communities across its land for upwards of 100 years.

I know the gentleman on the other side of the aisle who is presenting this closed rule, a record, another time the majority has broken its promise to allow us to have an open rule, an open debate, and for the minority to offer up amendments, he is actually a cosponsor of legislation to reauthorize the Community Schools Act.

The irony here is that you are creating new programs. You are going to go into the capital markets and compete to borrow money to fund $60 billion in new Federal spending that you don't have an offset for in this bill. So you are going to be in the same capital markets trying to find money that is frozen now to the private sector, trying to maintain the jobs by maintaining their lines of credit. So you are out there competing to borrow money.

Yesterday and today you said you couldn't add the rural schools legislation to the tax bill because, one, it wasn't in your jurisdiction, and two, it wasn't paid for. So you defeated it. And you wouldn't allow us to offer an amendment.

Multiple times we came to this floor and came to the Rules Committee. We sought your grace, your indulgence, your support. This whole notion of bipartisanship would be a wonderful thing if it existed in the Rules Committee, or even here on the floor. We just wanted a chance to vote on an alternative to add. You wouldn't even give us that.

So the last time today, the good gentleman from Washington went back to the Rules Committee, offered up an amendment to go to this bill, since it is an appropriation bill, since it has no offsets, since it is being rushed to floor to deal with the Secure Rural Schools Act, and you rejected even allowing that amendment to be voted on here.

Meanwhile, I pick up this bill and on page 12 you fund a new program, a program for green schools. Now, I am all for conservation and energy efficiency and all those things. But it is $3 billion, $3 billion with a B dollars, for a new program for new grants to do conservation at existing schools, at a time when school teachers in California are being fired, when sheriff's deputies in Josephine and Jackson and Klamath Counties are getting their pink slips, when we won't have the people to do the search and rescue when mountain climbers and families get lost in the Federal forest lands and up on the mountains. All those people are actually losing their jobs.

The libraries in Jackson County closed last year. This is the biggest county in my district. We have got counties in southern Oregon, in the Fourth District, that are contemplating bankruptcy. That means going out of business altogether. There will be no nighttime patrols.

Why do you spend on a new program $3 billion, and not reauthorize and keep the commitment of an existing Federal program? Don't you care about those jobs? Don't you care about those people and those services?

Let me tell you what the Portland Oregonian wrote today. ``Help for rural counties simply is not a priority in the U.S. House of Representatives. That is the only explanation for the House leadership's decision to strip county payments from a popular tax bill that just hours after the Senate voted 93-2 for a bill that would have continued the program that sends $185 million a year to 33 Oregon counties. House Democrats first tried to blame the White House,'' as you have heard now, ``but the Bush administration on Thursday issued a clear statement that it would sign the Senate bill with the county payments included, but would not sign the bill the House Democrats favored. House Democrats also tried to pose as fiscal conservatives in denying county payments, but that was unconvincing too.''

They go on to write, ``It is Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leaders who decided to break the Nation's promise to help support rural counties who host vast areas of Federal timberland.''

It is the Democrat leadership. Not the President, not some Wall Street

bailout. It is the Democratic leadership in this House who have told us they will help us, and then every vehicle that comes along, the door is slammed just as we reach for the handle, and it drives off, speeds off to somewhere else and runs over our feet.

That is what has happened here. You can talk all you want about a bailout of Wall Street. I don't favor a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, but I do support my local communities. Further, I do believe this government would have more credibility in this Congress, higher than a 9 percent approval rating, if it simply kept its word. If you kept your word that the rules would be open and we would be allowed to have alternatives brought to this floor, then your talk about bipartisanship might hold some validity.

Why won't you allow us to have this amendment on the floor? I would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts, why won't you allow us to at least have an amendment on the floor?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I would explain to you why. Why would you refuse not to bring that back under a rule? Why?

I will get to that. I will reclaim my time. You refused to bring it under a rule to the House because you wanted no alternative by the minority to be considered. You brought it under suspension.

And under the suspension of the rules, you denied the minority the opportunity to offer an alternative. As you could on many other bills and have, you could have brought H.R. 3058 back yesterday, the day before, any day since it went down. You had 218 votes on the House floor and you could pass it.

I voted against it because it violates contracts. It was a placeholder. And you did not keep your word coming out of the Resources Committee that it would include payment in lieu of taxes when it came to the floor and it would have a different pay-for. That was another broken commitment.

So bring it to the floor. Bring it tomorrow. You are on the Rules Committee, you could do that, and you refuse. So stop the rhetoric, and let's get to the facts.

[From the Oregonian, Sept. 25, 2008]

For House Democratic Leaders, Rural Counties Are Not a Priority

Help for rural counties simply is not a priority in the

U.S. House of Representatives. That's the only explanation

for the House leadership's decision to strip county payments

from a popular tax bill just hours after the Senate voted 93-

2 for a bill that would have continued the program that sends

$185 million a year into 33 Oregon counties.

We don't blame Oregon's congressional delegation. By all

accounts, Reps. Peter DeFazio and Earl Blumenauer, both

Democrats, and Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., argued strongly for

inclusion of funding for county payments. This was not a

matter of their will--it was a matter of the inability of

Oregon Democrats to persuade their own party leaders to

support the aid to counties.

House Democrats first tried to blame the White House, but

the Bush administration on Thursday issued a clear statement

that it would sign the Senate bill, with the county payments

included, but would not sign the bill that House Democrats

favored. House Democrats also tried to pose as fiscal

conservatives in denying county payments, but that was

unconvincing, too.

The House Democrats are only the latest leaders in

Washington to turn their back on rural counties, The Bush

White House has consistently been lukewarm to hostile on the

payment program. And many of the Republicans who formerly

controlled the Congress did not lift a finger to get county

payments extended.

But this time, it is Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic

leaders who decided to break the nation's promise to help

support rural counties who host vast areas of federal

timberland. The Senate, encouraged by Oregon's Ron Wyden and

Gordon Smith, provided strong backing for including the

county payments in the popular tax bill.

Now that the White House has signaled its clear preference

for the Senate version of the tax bill, Senate President

Harry Reid of Nevada and other Senate Democratic leaders

should stand firm and send their bill right back to the

House, with the county payments intact.

While all this goes on, rural Oregon counties are preparing

for wholesale layoffs of their sheriff's deputies and

shutdowns of libraries and other local services. They are

also watching the federal government rush to the financial

aid, it seems, of everyone and anyone but the timber

communities of Oregon and the West.

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

The comments made by the gentleman were not accurate when he referred to me.

Mr. Speaker, I move to take down his words.

Would the gentleman yield?

Would the gentleman yield?

Would the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding.

My comments were never intended for the gentleman. I respect the fact that the gentleman helped us with a 1-year extension. In prior debates on this floor and in the last week and before, I have thanked the gentleman and credited him with that extension.

I also have legislation before the House Resources Committee that would not only extend this program but fully fund it.

I want to thank my colleague from Michigan.

Let me make a couple of points here. First of all, it's ironic that the argument by the Democrat majority on the floor today is one that says, you can't cut taxes unless you raise taxes and all this other discussion, when in 35 or 34 minutes, up in the House Rules Committee the Democrat majority is going to, I'm told, move a stimulus bill that spends tens and tens and tens of billions of dollars for which I believe there are no offsets. There's a little inconsistency here.

And for those of us from the West, that are home to the rural timbered counties where Federal land may equate to over half of our States and our districts, you want to talk about loss of jobs? Come to my district, where we have three counties of the 20 that are over 8 percent unemployment and have been. The mills have been closed. These are blue-collar jobs that have gone away because this Congress has failed to reauthorize--

I will in a second. I'm a little passionate on this, and then I'd be happy to yield.

I'd love to have your help reauthorizing secure county roads and schools. It's in the Senate version of this legislation. The President has said he will sign that legislation, it can become law, and then our counties don't have to gut their sheriff's departments, their fire departments, their search and rescue departments. The libraries are closing. The school teachers have been fired.

It doesn't have to happen that way. The Senate has risen to the challenge and come forward with a way to do that.

Every time we have asked for help to reauthorize and fund this, this majority has figured out a way to deny that, other than one emergency extension.

We need your help on this. This is the time that if the previous question had been defeated, we could have offered an amendment to add it to this bill. This is the time that, if this bill went away, and we just took up the Senate bill when it got here, it could become law tomorrow and we could resolve this problem.

I've only got a few seconds here, but I'd be happy to yield.

I thank my colleague from Michigan for the time.

I want to make a couple of other points because I actually have legislation that would not only pay for a 10-year extension of these tax extenders and incent production of renewable energy, but would do much more, including fully fund county payments and fully fund payment in lieu of taxes by developing America's great energy reserves and using the royalties and the fees from the SEA Act, The Security and Energy for America Act, to actually pay for these things because I was a small business person for 21 years and 7 months, owned and operated a small company. I understand about paying taxes, and I understand about meeting budgets. And I have legislation that would accomplish both, but the majority won't allow it to even have a hearing.

So we're confronted today with legislation that only goes part way and doesn't deal with the biggest issue affecting Republicans and Democrats and Independents and school kids and people who are out in the woods. We have an enormous crisis in our Federal forests. We, the people in this House, are the stewards of those great lands. I've got half a million acres of Federal and private timber land that is ready to go up in fire in one of our national forests, Winema-Fremont, half a million acres. That's as big as the Biscuit Fire a few years ago. It's all bug infested and dead, and we need to get in there and work in it.

Reauthorization of Secure Rural Schools would help us do that, through the various titles.

You're going to spend $250 an acre to treat those lands. If you don't pass Secure Rural Schools and other legislation that would help us go in and treat it, you're going to spend $1,500 to $2,000 an acre to fight fire. And my good friend knows all about fighting fire. You get in and you prevent it.

This is why, for multiple reasons, not only for our kids, for law enforcement, for search and rescue, for libraries that are being closed, why can't this majority give us an opportunity to at least have a vote to reauthorize and fund the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act? It was bipartisan when it became law in 2000. Bill Clinton signed it into law.