Floor Statements

I thank my colleague and friend from Texas for yielding.

I come to the floor today bitterly disappointed that this majority is one more time denying the opportunity to fund county timber payments to districts like mine.

The Secure Rural Schools Program aids more than 600 rural counties, and 4,400 school districts in 42 States. Let me say that again: 4,400 school districts, 42 States, 600 rural counties are affected by this.

There is broad bipartisan support to reauthorize this legislation and keep a

nearly century-old commitment to the areas like I represent in rural Oregon where the Federal Government owns more than half of the land, much of it timbered. In the old days they would share the receipts from the timber harvest, and then the Federal Government and the courts shut all of that down.

I have three counties that have more than 8 percent unemployment. Virtually all of the mills are gone. I had people coming up to me last weekend in their overalls asking, Is there any hope? Is there any hope for them and their kids to make a decent living taking care of America's forests? Is there any hope to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act in this Congress? I gave them a little hope. I said the Senate, the United States Senate, seems to be caring about us. And, indeed, in the tax extenders bill passed by the United States Senate by 93-2, they reauthorized the Secure Rural Schools, phasing it out over 4 years in a formula we all agreed to, but we don't necessarily like.

Time and again, Democrat leadership in this House has said ``no'' to that legislation. That is happening right here, right now. It just happened up in the Rules Committee by denying an amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) on a party-line 8-3 vote. They said, no, we won't even let the House vote to take care of these folks back home and keep this 100-year-old Federal commitment. It is outrageous. It is outrageous.

Let me tell you what it means to the people out there. These are real jobs being lost. There are counties in Oregon that may declare bankruptcy. Half the police force in sheriff's offices, the deputies are gone. Road department after road department after road department, cut, slashed, gone. I have counties that have one road maintenance person for every 100 miles of road in their county now. That is the distance from the Nation's capital to Richmond, Virginia, in case you're counting.

You are down to where there won't be any patrols by sheriff's deputies. And yet Americans want to recreate in America's forests. Unfortunately, they go out there and occasionally they get lost. And when they get lost, whom do they call upon to come find them but these same search and rescue teams. Tragically, often they have perished in my State before they get rescued.

It was through funding through this program, or in the old days through the revenue sharing that came to those counties that we were able to have the search and rescue teams and the equipment and everything necessary to go out and try and rescue these families who would get lost or caught in a snowstorm. That is going away.

Schools are deeply affected. In my State, the money, $280 million a year, was funneled throughout all of the school districts. In some States they didn't do it that way. They have already laid off teachers.

Now what is wrong with keeping the word that this Speaker and others said at the beginning of this Congress that there would be an open and fair opportunity for the minority to offer up amendments, have them fully considered, and have them so people can see them.

No, this Rules Committee on an 8-3 basis said we are not going to even allow you to have a vote. And the heck with these county roads and schools where the Federal Government has total control, and the heck with the people who live out there.

County roads and school reauthorization should never have been a partisan issue, and yet it has become that. This House could simply take up the Senate bill under a different rule and allow a vote. And the President of the United States, although he is not the biggest fan of reauthorizing this county payments program, said he would sign that bill that came out of the Senate. So he is not the obstacle. He never said he would veto this. He doesn't like parts of it, but the staff is pretty clear that he would sign it into law and we would reauthorize it.

Republicans would like to see a vote on this. They tried in the Rules Committee, but your Rules Committee said no. So here we are today. This same day rule short-circuits that process with a rule that says this is all you get, and shoves it back to the Senate.

It is time for reform and time for change, and it needs to start right here right now by defeating this same-day rule, by defeating the next rule and giving people in this House the chance to represent their people back home by at least having a vote to reauthorize and fund county roads and schools.

I will tell you, when you let them down, you are hurting literally school kids and putting people's lives in peril because search and rescue will be reduced or eliminated in some areas, and police forces are already being dramatically cut. And that is wrong. It doesn't have to be that way. If we really wanted to solve problems, you wouldn't ram this through the way you are doing it.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's kind and generous comments, and also his willingness to come out to my State this summer and see what we are facing in some of these forests.

I talked to a county commissioner from Klamath County yesterday morning. The Winema National Forest now, between the Federal forest land and adjacent private land, there is a half-a-million acres, 500,000 acres, that is now bug infested and nearly dead, if not completely dead. They can go in and treat that area, clean it up, replant it, get the dead trees out for about $250 an acre. If we wait until it catches on fire, taxpayers will spend $1,500 to $2,000 an acre to fight the fire.

Reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act makes funds available through different titles in the bill to assist those local governments and the Forest Service to get in and make our forests less susceptible to catastrophic fire, healthier by removing the dead or diseased trees or those that are bug infested and get ahead of this and actually be better stewards of our lands.

This year, the Federal Forest Service budget spent over half, 52 percent so far, to fight fire. In that forest alone, they had to take $1 million away from forest treatment efforts to pay for fighting fires elsewhere. So we fall further and further behind.

This is not the stewardship of our forests that we should be proud of. It is the lack of stewardship that would cause Theodore Roosevelt to roll over in his grave, the great founder of our Nation's forest system. And it doesn't have to happen. It doesn't have to happen.

Communities shouldn't be evacuated because of fire threat. Our budgets at the Forest Service shouldn't be exhausted to put out fires. And the biggest economic activity in a rural, forested timbered community around these Federal lands shouldn't be the making of sandwiches for the fire fighters. This has to stop.

The gentleman from New York is a cosponsor of the legislation I'm advocating here. There are other members of the Rules Committee that are cosponsors of this legislation on both sides of the aisle. This is our opportunity. This is our moment. This is our time.

The Senate and the White House support this effort in the legislation sent here by the Senate. If not now, when? Or do you let it all burn? Because that's what's happening out there.

Do you put people out of work?

You claim you're for family wage jobs. You're killing them in my part of the world.

Am I angry about this?

You bet I am. This is real life-and-death stuff. I was at the memorial service for the firefighters who were killed in Northern California, killed fighting fires. And while that, tragically, will happen again, and it is not all the fault that we don't have the Community Self-Determination Act in place, we need to get better policy. We need to get ahead of this problem. We need to be the good stewards we're entrusted to be of these lands. It is not that hard to be fair. It shouldn't be that hard.

Thank you to my colleague from Texas, and I note the chairman, apparently, has had to leave the floor, but perhaps he will be able to hear this somewhere wherever he is.

It is extraordinarily important to the States that are involved, to the 4,400 school districts that are involved, the 600 rural counties that are involved, this is the opportunity that is being lost. This measure, when it came from the other body, passed by the other body, had in it a 4-year reauthorization bipartisan of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.

That funding is used to help school kids go to school in areas where there is a high preponderance of Federal lands, timber lands. That funding is being taken away. It helps pay for search and rescue, fire and police. That funding is being taken away.

You see, I have got counties that up to 70 percent of their land mass is off their tax rolls because it's Federal land. We have 11 national forests in my district alone in the nearly 70,000 square miles of Oregon that I represent.

The mills are closed because of change in policy and litigation. The jobs are lost, the revenues have dried up. Now the Federal Government, in effect, is breaching its nearly century-old commitment, century-old commitment, to share revenues and help.

Now yesterday on this House floor the majority waived twice PAYGO rules on two other tax provisions, waived them. They have waived them before.

If they were going to bring a bill here that has pay-fors in it to pay for the tax extensions, why did they rip out county payments and not, instead, pay for them somehow and put that on the floor? It's a choice they made.

Why didn't they allow us to have at least a vote on the floor on an amendment and let the will of the House be worked, as they promised they would do if they got control of this House, and now seem less inclined to allow?

So there is no opportunity for my side of the aisle, the Republicans, to even offer an amendment, to keep the Federal Government's commitment for the last 100 years to these rural schools and counties and sheriffs' departments, to do the search and rescue, to do the fire work, to do everything they do, educate our kids, among other things. It also denies us the opportunity to reauthorize titles II and III of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, which brings together in a collaborative process environmental organizations, forestry and community leaders in all the States.

How can we be better stewards of the lands around us? How do we get out and do the work that, A, produces jobs; B, makes our forests healthier and safer and our communities safer?

That funding stream has dried up. There have been massive layoffs in the local governments that I represent. We have counties in Oregon, some of which are contemplating bankruptcy, bankruptcy, dissolve, go away, turn themselves back to the States and the neighboring counties. This is real serious stuff, and it has been going on a long time.

This is the opportunity before us. We asked the leadership in a bipartisan way. Members of both parties sent letters to the leadership saying can you give us another 1-year extension in the CR. They chose not to, and that's their prerogative.

This is the vehicle that's come from the Senate, or at least the vehicle that the Senate passed would have reauthorized and funded county payments for the next 4 years in a phased-out process.

Now some have alleged in the press that it was dropped because the President was going to veto this bill if it was in it. That's not what the statement of administrative policy says, and I don't believe that's what the chairman said or the leadership on the Democrat side of the aisle said.

This isn't because the President said he would veto it, because he didn't say he would veto it. He said he would sign it if the House would take it up. So this could become law. This could become law. This could be passed, this could become law. We could get back

on track in 600 rural counties and 4,400 school districts in 42 States and be the partner we should be.

We do a lot of things in this Congress for this, our Nation's city. That's right, because there is a huge Federal footprint and presence here, so we do a lot of things to help the residents of Washington, DC. I believe the figure is 26 percent of the land mass of Washington, DC is Federal. And the rest is private.

You get out in the west and upwards of half of our States in some cases, and sometimes more, is Federal ground. When there is a fire in the forest, which we have had, again, another record season of fire- fighting costs and loss of life and loss of habitat and forests, it is the local sheriff's department. It is the local community that is affected.

In southern Oregon this year in the Rogue Valley, for nearly a month the air quality was about as bad as you can get because of the fires in northern California choking the air shed. There is so much work we need to do out in our forests.

In the Winema-Fremont National Forest, there is more than 500,000 acres of Federal and private land that is ready to go up in smoke. It is disease-ridden. There is beetle kill. And because of the way that the budget is structured and this Congress' refusal--we did it in the House but the Senate hasn't taken it up, a bill to create a separate fire category for the Forest Service, they have had to take $1 million out of that one forest alone to pay for current fire- fighting costs elsewhere, which means the money is not available to go in and do the thinning and remove the dying trees and open up the stands and deal with the beetle kill. They have had to put all of that, or at least $1 million of it, on hold which just means that the problem gets worse faster. So when it ignites, and it will, folks, you will have half-a-million acres in the northwest, in the Winema-Fremont National Forest, go up in smoke.

Now this legislation, if we can get an amendment, and if you vote down the previous question, I will offer a 4-year extension as the alternative. So you will have a chance to vote. If you are for county payments, vote ``no'' on the previous question.

If that fails, then our motion to recommit will be the full Senate bill that has the 4-year extension with county payments in it.

So this is where the rubber hits the road. This is where you have an opportunity to be for county payments, for your local schools, for the sheriff service, for search and rescue. For all the things, the collaborative approaches to forest management that this legislation in the past has helped provide.

Unless you think that this is a partisan issue, it never was and should never be, because it was enacted in a Republican Congress with a Democrat President, and it has been hailed as a marvelous success on the ground, and it has been a wonderful partnership until it was allowed to expire. Today we need to reauthorize it. Today we need to be given at least the opportunity to vote on it. What is wrong in a democratic institution, the finest on the planet, of offering us at least an opportunity to vote? You have the votes if you want to kill it. You outnumber us on rules more than 2-to-1. There are ways to do this. It doesn't have to be this way.

I want to thank my colleague and friend from Texas for yielding the time to me at this time.

I'm bitterly disappointed, frankly, that we find ourselves back here on this floor once again without an opportunity even to offer up an alternative. And to put it in perspective for my colleagues who may not frequent the Rules Committee, ``closed rule'' means that the minority has no opportunity to offer up an alternative. Period. No opportunity to come to this floor in this great democratic institution, the finest in the world, and have a chance to have a vote on an alternative to this measure. That's what a closed rule is. You shut it down, you shut out everybody else. You got your way. You run the train, and you ran right over the top of literally half the people in America, nearly, who are represented on this side of the aisle.

So what does that mean? It means the amendment that I hoped would be allowed to at least be debated and considered here will not be.

I appreciate my colleague from Washington's Fourth District, Doc Hastings, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington, who offered the amendment. And it was defeated on a strict party-line partisan vote that precludes our opportunity here on the floor when it went down to defeat to even have a discussion about what it means to the 20 counties I represent and the many that he does and the 4,400 school districts and multi-hundred counties in 42 States that have had their revenue sharing cut off because this Congress, this Congress has failed to reauthorize county payments program.

So why are we here?

The Senate had a similar bill to this. It passed 93-2. Huge bipartisan effort trying to get the problem solved for this country. That would have extended these extenders that help on renewable energy, which I'm a big fan of. It also took care of this enormously important issue to the West because it is principally a western issue because, frankly, that's where the Federal lands are is in the West.

Now I know that other counties and other school districts around the country are affected, certainly, and this legislation could have helped them had it been allowed to be offered, but it's not being offered. But nobody is affected more than my colleague from the Fourth District in Oregon and myself, our constituents, some of whom now are out of work.

The largest county in my district had to close all of its public libraries. Most of the road departments in my district have been cut in half, perhaps more. Now in some counties there's one road person for every 100 miles of road. Many of the roads will be turned back to gravel, back to gravel. That's not progress in America.

And the Rules Committee had the jurisdiction, has the authority to prevent that from happening by at least allowing us to have a vote. Not once, not twice, but multiple times they denied that vote.

Now the gentleman from New York raised in the discussion of the Rules Committee about a bill that was brought to the floor that would have reauthorized county schools and roads for 4 years. I was cosponsor of that bill originally under the premise and promise that when it came to the floor it would have a different pay-for because that's what was promised in the Resources Committee, and that payment in lieu of taxes would be included in that bill when it came to the floor--that was the promise, and it was broken. It came to the floor differently.

The gentleman will say, Well, you're in the pocket of Big Oil because we wanted to raise the fees on oil companies to pay for it. Well, please. Under the conservation of resource fee that is allowable under the contract at issue here, the leases, you can add that fee but you can't use it to pay for county payments. The courts have looked at this issue. You can use it to do resource work around the shorelines and all, but you violate contracts when you do it the way you all brought it to the floor.

So, we can argue about that. I happen to believe I'm right. I'm right, I know, in that the promises were broken when it came to the floor.

In addition to that, I also believe that you all have the power to decide how bills come to the floor. You made the decision to bring it under suspension of the rules, had to suspend the rules of the House, requiring a two-thirds majority for that to be passed in this House. And it failed.

And the reason you brought it to the floor under suspension was so that the Republicans could offer no alternative, because that's the issue, isn't it? When you bring a bill under suspension, you and I both know, all of us know the minority has no chance to offer an alternative; it's an up-or-down vote. So we had the up-or-down vote, and it failed.

So then the bill went away, except we also know that you in the majority are most powerful and in the Rules Committee have a 2-to-1 plus one vote. You could craft a rule tonight, just as you have done here, and you could bring that bill back to the floor tomorrow, couldn't you, because you have got 218 votes for it. You didn't get the two-thirds. You got 218. So any day since that bill failed on the floor on suspension, you could have brought it back.

And you could have sent it to the Senate. If you'd had the same pay- for, it would still violate contracts. The Senate's repeatedly refused to accept that pay-for, oh, by the way, I was told repeatedly it was nothing but a placeholder, anyway, and it was never going to be used to fund the bill. So it was never really going to get the job done.

This bill that the Senate sent to us would get the job done. It's honest. It's direct. It would pay for 4 years of county payments in PILT. It would put our people back to work. It would help people deal with the problems in our Nation's forests that are so, so at risk of fire and destruction. It would allow the funding to go back to the communities, to our schools, so that teachers could be hired rather than fired; so we could maintain the roads that lead to our national forests; so that we could pay for search and rescue; so we could actually have collaborative efforts again under title II to go out and bring people together and do what needs to be done in our forests.

You have that power in the majority. We had it when we were in the majority, and those who criticized us for not getting this reauthorized when it just went to expiration, you're right. I was frustrated with our own majority that we couldn't get it done. I take that criticism. I leveled that criticism because I am so passionate about the need to maintain this partnership that's now been broken not for 1 year but for 2.

And this is today. Today is when you make the decision to move forward or not. This is today. It's actually tonight. And we've had two shots today where you could have given us this alternative to at least have a vote on the floor.

So my colleague from Texas, I apologize for my time. I do not apologize for my passion on the need to get a chance to at least have a real vote on a real measure that the President would sign and that the Senate's approved.

So I am bitterly disappointed tonight that for the second time in one day we have been denied on a party-line vote the opportunity to even have this amendment be considered on the floor of this great democratic institution.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman. I wonder if the gentleman from New York would yield to a question or be willing to accept a question.

And the question is why, given the status of the majority, did you not bring that bill back under a rule or allow it to come to the floor under a rule to begin with? You're on the Rules Committee.

Yes.

Reclaiming my time, but answer me this question. Why did the majority decide it had to come under suspension of the rules, denying the minority to have an alternative?

I'll answer your question very clearly, because of two reasons. One, the majority did not include payment in lieu of taxes in the bill, which they promised when it left the Resources Committee they would do. Two, they also promised that pay-for was nothing but a placeholder that would be removed before it came to the floor. So that wasn't done correctly. And three, you violate contracts, which I didn't come to Congress to violate contracts. I never did it in 21 years in private business. I wasn't going to do it here.

And it's not a royalty fee, by the way, that you had. It was a fee on conservation and resource, which the courts have looked at and said you can assess but you have to spend it for that purpose and that purpose only, and county payments doesn't fit that category. And you have used it multiple times and the Senate has rejected it. So it wasn't going to work.

So now I've answered your question. You answer mine. Why don't you bring it tomorrow to the floor under a rule?

You told me there was a pay-for.

I do.

I'm talking about the bill that came up in June that was defeated on a suspension vote. You could have turned around the next day if you felt so passionately--you're on the Rules Committee--and brought it to the floor under a rule, couldn't you?

Why?

Why? Of course you could. You do it all the time. A bill goes down on suspension--we did it, you do it--you bring it back under a rule the next day or a week later. You had 218 votes on the floor.

Reclaiming my time, you refuse to answer why your majority doesn't bring it back up under a rule. It only takes 218 to pass it under a rule, a majority of those present. You had 218 that day.

You see the point is, you wouldn't bring it up under a rule because you wanted no debate on a real alternative or any other amendment that would be allowed under a rule. You could have passed it the next day and sent it on to the Senate. You chose not to. I don't control the Rules Committee. You all dominate it two-to-one plus one.

So if you care about school kids, you bring it up in a way that doesn't violate contracts, that actually could pay for it, or you allow us to bring it up under this bill or you put it in the continuing resolution or when the Senate sent it over as a 1-year extension--

Or when the Senate sent over a 1-year funding package in the emergency supplemental, why did the House leadership strike it there?

There have been multiple opportunities this year to deal with this issue in multiple ways, and we are told that Sunday night we're going to be done and out of here for the session.

And every time somebody says to me, well, gee, I'm all for it but we've got to do it later on or this bill or that bill or not this bill or that bill. We're out of time. The layoffs have already occurred. The jobs are gone. The communities are suffering. The law enforcement officials have been let go.

I don't know where to go from here. I'm bitterly disappointed that we have these silly arguments when we ought to be passing legislation that actually helps real people in real places.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to draw our colleagues' attention to a gentleman and outstanding citizen who has demonstrated that long-term success is possible in America if one has a vision and is willing to work hard to turn it into reality. This gentleman has also devoted himself to the principles we celebrate here in our country--freedom to build a successful business, and loyalty to family and community.

Today I pay special recognition and honor to Bob Thomas, Sr., of Baker County, OR, a genuine ``up by the bootstraps'' livestock producer who never lost his vision for what the Angus cattle breed could become; a dedicated husband to his wife, Gloria, with whom he raised four very successful children; a leader

in his church, community, and industry--and a gentleman whose friends and neighbors have always been able to rely on.

Bob and Gloria moved to the Baker Valley of picturesque eastern Oregon in the early 1960's from New York, via Iowa. With them came their treasured seed stock for their line of Angus beef cattle. In the winter, Gloria fed the cows with young son Rob in the pickup. Bob was also working as a sales representative for Powder River Equipment, selling gates and ranch equipment to supplement their ranch income. They worked very hard to achieve their dream--a high quality herd of registered Angus cattle.

Their first purebred Angus sale was held in October, 1973 and throughout the years Bob and Gloria always made everyone feel like they were special to them because, in fact, they were special to them. Now, nearly 35 years later, that same high quality Angus breeding stock is sold in a 2-day sale in October, as well as a spring sale in March.

The Thomas family still shows the same hospitality and personal attention today as they did at their very first sale. Following in the footprints of Bob and Gloria, son Rob and his wife Lori continue the Thomas tradition as highly respected leaders in their industry and community. They maintain the same unwavering commitment to the high quality of their Angus line and service.

Madam Speaker, I want to especially honor Bob for his many years of dedication to and support of the people of Baker County and the rural way of life in eastern Oregon. His fellow citizens greatly appreciate his high principles, commitment to high quality and standards, and his friendship. Please join me in congratulating and thanking Bob Thomas, Sr.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Delaware and congratulate him and our colleague from New York on this legislation and just advise the body that Oregon, once again, is in the lead when it comes to recognizing national parks as our quarter. The design for the back of it for our State was processed through a very public effort. They picked Crater Lake National Park as the park to recognize on the back of the quarter. And so we're already in the lead, and it's a wonderful national park; and as my colleague from Georgia talked about earlier, it's also one you have to drive a great distance to get to.

When I was in my home county this last week, diesel was $5.08 a gallon. Gasoline was $4.39 a gallon. And if this is the result of the new Democratic direction for the Congress and for the country, then I hope we're at about the end of this new direction because it's taken us to a dead-end.

Now, I just wanted to point out a clarification, I guess, in terms of these leases we've heard so much about. My understanding is that when the Democrats were last in charge, they actually voted a law to extend the length of those leases that the oil companies had. And I would like to see them, the oil companies, process these leases and move forward with development because that's what I think America needs, more energy, more American energy. And yet this Congress has refused to even allow a vote, afraid to even allow a vote on accessing the 85 percent of the offshore resource that is not available. It's not available. And if the argument is that we would be better off by accessing the leases already there, then the argument really is adding to supply matters and that adding to supply will result in lower gas and lower diesel costs.

So then it seems logical to presume that accessing America's great reserves, the Outer Continental Shelf, would not only create new oil and gas supplies for America and American consumers, it would also generate royalty dollars for government services.

I have been working on legislation that would deal with the twin issues of energy policy for America that creates new gas, new diesel, new access to oil, as well as fund the biggest investment in renewable energy this Congress has seen and help those lowest income among us with their home heating bills and take care of the neglected challenge this Congress has refused to take up and pass, and that is help for our counties that are dominated by Federal lands.

So we would pay for 5 years in county timber payments. We would fully fund the commitment to rural counties for payment in lieu of taxes. We would put $1 billion into LIHEAP and $3.1 billion into developing renewable energy.

Now, my colleague from New York said, What did Republicans do when they were in charge? Well, we passed bill after bill after bill that raised conservation standards on appliances. We invested in the newest and futuristic technology trying to drive the basic science in hydrogen fuel cell development. We supported efforts to extend successfully, I might add, the tax credits for wind energy and geothermal and solar and the things that I think will give us a great future in renewable energy.

But we have a here-and-today problem that this Congress and its leadership fails to address. I don't know where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were over the Fourth of July, but I was home with real people. They're hurting. There are truckers who are losing their jobs. There are farmers who tell me it costs hundreds of dollars to fill a tank in their tractor, and fertilizer has doubled in cost. There are families who can't go to their kids' summer games because it costs $87 to fill the Voyager van. If this is the new direction that the Democrats in this Congress have for America, I've got to tell you it's a dead-end direction and it needs to change.

Why not give us at least the opportunity in this great House, this great place where Americans come together to debate issues, to at least allow a vote to access the energy reserves we know are out there on Federal land or in the Outer Continental Shelf, up in Alaska? And if it fails, it fails. The Congress will have spoken in the House. But so far we have gone through, as a result of the Democrat leadership, the most incredible--this reminds me of the game of Twister. We are so convoluted and upside down and twisted to avoid any vote that it is reprehensible.

So, Mr. Speaker, I both support not only the act before us today, but I call for this House to at least allow a vote that I think would not only be bipartisan, as it was in 2006 when we passed, in this House, overwhelmingly with 40 Democrats supporting our efforts to get at our offshore oil resource. It would be an overwhelming bipartisan vote. And isn't that what democracy is really all about? You put an issue up on the table, you allow a vote, and we live with the outcome.

So I ask for that opportunity, Mr. Speaker, just as we're voting today on this wonderful bill to allow national parks to have a coin. As I said, Oregon has been at the forefront on that issue just as we are on renewable energy. Let's have a vote. Let's not have a vote like we had when we passed the Energy Act of 2007 that said if another country is making oil from tar sands, don't let the American military use it. Or like was stuffed in that bill a provision that said if you could take woody biomass and turn it into an ethanol-like fuel, don't count that against the ethanol fuel standard. Why is that in there?

Why can't you use the great resource of our American forests, convert them into ethanol using cellulosic technology, which Republicans and Democrats both agree need to happen? But then to say, Oh, but if you succeed at that, it doesn't count towards this out-of-control ethanol standard because we wouldn't want to count woody biomass off of Federal forests or unless it's specifically grown for that purpose, as ethanol, it can be used for a fuel standard in America. No. We would rather rely on corn, I guess. And that hasn't helped us a lot.

So I think we have invested in new technologies when Republicans were in control. We invested in new science.

We also tried to expedite access to America's great reserves. Every other country on the planet that has an ocean exercises its right to its own reserves, and yeah, it might take 10 years, but if Bill Clinton, former President, hadn't vetoed access into Alaska's reserves, we would be pumping a million to a million and a half barrels out a day. America uses, I think, what is it, 20 million barrels a day? We produce 5. Where would we be if President Clinton hadn't vetoed that? We would be a lot better off, folks, because the world produces about 85 million barrels a day and consumes 86, or thereabouts.

This has a lot of things around it: certainly money supply, value of the dollar, inflation, speculators, who knows what. But at its core, until we bridge to the next generation of fuel for our vehicles, we have a here-and-now problem at the gas pump, at the diesel pump, and at the American budget.

The families in this country are hurting, hurting; and if you're not hearing that on the other side of the aisle, you're not going home and listening. You can't hide forever on the ability to access America's resources. You can't stop the country from demanding a vote. Just one vote. Give us a vote, up-or-down, clean, simple, the way democracy is supposed to work here in this House. But no.

The appropriations process ground to a halt. There might be a vote on energy. Every other bill that might have anything to do with energy ground to a halt. Heck, even declaring a wild and scenic river in Massachusetts had to be pulled because it dealt with LNG. Ground to a halt.

This country is grinding to a halt. It's time for a change in how this Congress acts.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today in support of this legislation and feel that it's a good first step. Unfortunately, it doesn't do quite what it was supposed to do, which was to really wall this off as emergency funding and address the problem. But it does authorize the money. It does set up a separate budget account.

Today in the Forest Service they spend 47 percent of their budget fighting fire. And for many years I've argued on this floor that what happens is we get the fire season, the Forest Service runs out of money, so then they rob from all the accounts where they had the projects in place to do the thinning to reduce the threat of fire for the next year. And then time runs out in the season, they can't do those projects, and we get fire. And then we restore the money as a Congress, and we repeat the cycle.

And today in America there are tens of millions, if not hundreds, of acres of Federal forest land that are subject to catastrophic fire, disease and bug infestation. If you're concerned about global warming and think carbon additions to the atmosphere are the problem, then you need to know that every year 290 million metric tons of carbon dioxide go into our atmosphere from forest fires. That's the equivalent of 4 to 6 percent of the Nation's carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning.

This portrait here is a picture of Judge Steve Grasty, a Democrat in my district, his grandkids. And they're standing out in the Egley fire after it occurred in Harney Country. This fire burned well over 100,000 acres in an area that obviously needed thinning and hadn't been thinned.

And that's part of what brings me to the floor today, not only to support this bill--because I think it makes sense to have a separate firefighting budget, I think it makes sense to identify the most highest risk areas that need the treatment and to go in and treat them and to help the communities with grants and the things that are in this bill--but we need to do more than that because we should have learned the lesson that a treated forest is a healthier forest.

When we collectively passed the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and signed into law by President Bush in 2003, the Forest Service began to have the tools to expedite the treatments in the wildland urban interface. And the collaborative process my colleague from Idaho talked about that brought together the Community Wildfire Protection Planning Program allowed them to go outside the 1.5 mile around the community, and the community decided what needed to be treated.

The problem in my region, region six in the northwest, the great forest of America, is that most of the fires--over 1,400 of them in 2007--started up in the ridge lines and deep in the forest. Only a dozen or two dozen started right around the wildland urban interface.

The foresters who are the trained scientists that deal with fire environment tell me they need to take that Healthy Forest Restoration authority we gave them as a Congress in a bipartisan way

and expand it out into the Condition Class 2 and 3 lands, the lands determined by the scientists to be most out of whack with balance in nature, to go in and do the thinning. And we know where that occurs, fire behaves differently. And you all from California know very clearly, this is the kind of fire you have today, it sweeps through these areas that are overstocked, bug-infested, disease-ridden, dried out and can't handle fire. This is the same area of that fire, the Squire's Peak Fire, that had been treated.

This area that's burning is the area they hadn't treated yet. This is the difference. Look at the green growth here. The fire went through under the brush that had been treated, and it's fine. This picture, by the way, was shot by the last guy doing treatment as they drove away from the fire. They were out doing the treatment, and then they turned into firefighters and he shot that out of the back of his rig.

So I think we need to move forward with different legislation. This is good legislation: Pass it; get it over to the Senate; declare it an emergency; do this funding piece. But we need to do more. If you want to deal with these fires that are setting records for how much they consume, not only of the taxpayers' purse, but of our Nation's resource, habitat, watershed, look at the greenhouse gases, the smoke, the pollutants in the atmosphere, then we have to be able to give our forest managers the tools that they've proven can work in a collaborative way around communities and extend those out into the great reserves, the forests that are Condition Class 2 and 3.

And so I hope we can build a bipartisan coalition to do that. And I hope the chairman of the Resources Committee will help us on that. Because if we don't, then the change that's occurring in our climate with temperature will only cause these forests to grow more drought- ridden, more disease-ridden, more bug-infested, more likely to burn up in fire. And I'll tell you what, when you go back to this picture, Judge Grasty's grandkids, this is what's left behind. This is not snow, this is ashen, destroyed ground. These are the trees which, by the way, may never get hard.

So we can do better. We can be better stewards of our Nation's forest. We owe it, as our legacy to the future, to be good stewards today. But we can't do it with the laws that are in place that impede the work. I mean, we owe it. I can't be more passionate about this. And I've worked with many of you in a bipartisan way to pass the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act, which the Senate failed to take up last Congress. We've got to do better than we're doing now.

This is a good little step forward in terms of managing the money so that the forest workers can do their work. We need to do more.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with you and my colleagues my pride in Georgette Brown. Georgette is a dedicated public servant, a good friend, and a stalwart guardian of the American election process.

Georgette is retiring after 25 years of elected service as County Clerk in Josephine County, Oregon. As all of you know, to be elected to a position repeatedly for over two and a half decades, a person must be extremely well liked, dedicated, competent, and a proven leader. Those attributes truly personify Georgette Brown.

In her career, Georgette has brought innovation and modernization to the Office of Josephine County Clerk since assuming office in 1983. She oversaw significant transitions that took the county from hand-counted paper ballots to punch cards to optical scan ballots, which are now in their third generation. She flawlessly facilitated the change from voting at polling places to a 100 percent vote-by-mail system today. Georgette has been a true professional as County Clerk, and I have relied on her many times to understand how proposed legislation might affect the local elections process.

Georgette has continually modernized the recordkeeping and reporting functions of the County Clerk's office, now utilizing the Internet extensively. She has created a user friendly office where you can easily obtain passports and other public documents. As County Clerk, Georgette also performs marriages.

To accomplish what Georgette has as County Clerk would be considered remarkable in and of itself, but Georgette also excelled at being a loving wife, mother, and now a grandmother. Her public service and leadership has gone beyond her elected position to include her long service in Rotary and Zonta. Georgette has served as president of both of those organizations dedicated to serving others. Georgette serves on the executive board of the International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials, and Treasurers. In her retirement, she plans to continue her international involvement in the elections process.

For most of her adult life, Georgette was at the side of her husband, Larry, who was tragically taken from us all too soon a few years ago when a long battle with cancer ended his life. Larry was, in every sense of the word, a great American, patriot, and one who accomplished great things. Larry and Georgette were a very effective team working to better their community. When Larry passed away, it took great courage for Georgette to carry on without him, but she has been up to this ultimate personal test. She has kept the flame of public service burning brightly for which the Browns were so well known.

Madam Speaker, with all of her significant accomplishments, Georgette would assuredly point with most pride to the two great daughters that she and Larry raised, Monique and Martie. Monique is married to Shane Anderson and they have presented Georgette with her first grandchild, Taylor Anderson.

Even though Georgette Brown is retiring from public office, she will always be active in serving others, and she remains committed to making her country and her community a better place in which to live and work. Madam Speaker, we may pass laws, but people like Georgette Brown make those laws work for all of us. Although she will be missed as County Clerk, she can leave that phase of her public service knowing that she gave it her all and she made a real difference. With public service such a part of her moral fiber, we know that she will soon be serving in new and innovative ways and continuing to improve the lives of others.

I highly value Georgette's service and her friendship. I ask you to join me in honoring this very special woman.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit.

In its present form, I am.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me say I have a long history of supporting mass transit in the urban areas of my State, including light rail development and bus transportation systems. I've received State-wide recognition for this work.

Unfortunately, there are no light rail routes, and few successful bus routes, in rural Oregon and in most of my district. In fact, the most important public mass transit in most of rural Oregon and, indeed, across most of rural America is a bright yellow school bus, like this one, that safely transports American children to and from school each day.

No one in America is immune from the impact of record-high gas prices, but for those of us from rural areas, the impact has been particularly severe not only on farms, families and small businesses, but also on our local governments that are struggling to pay sky-high fuel prices to maintain basic services.

Before you know it, our public school doors will open, and millions of our children will return to school, many of them on that familiar yellow school bus.

Yet all across this country, school superintendents are struggling mightily to figure out exactly how they'll afford to operate those school buses and to get our children to school.

Newspapers are filling with accounts of school districts and how they're going to respond to the cost of fuel. Some districts, including one just a few miles from here in Maryland, are considering reducing bus services and forcing children to walk up to 2 miles to school. Some schools are even discussing going to 4-day school weeks in order to reduce fuel consumption.

As profound as this problem is in urban and suburban area, it is even worse for those of us from rural communities where school buses must travel long distances to pick up and drop off children.

This is what the Yakima Herald-Republic in Washington State had to say just 5 days ago: ``Some of the surrounding districts in rural areas feel the pinch from increased costs a bit more because their buses have to travel farther to transport students. The Mt. Adams School District, which has about 1,000 students, is the third-largest district in the State with an area of 1,325 square miles. The district's 10 buses still travel more than 200,000 miles in a year.''

All the way across the country in Franklin County, Virginia, the Roanoke Times reports that ``a school official advised the board of supervisors Tuesday that the division could face an extra $690,000 in added fuel costs.''

Yet, today we have before us a bill that does absolutely nothing, nothing to lower the price of gasoline or diesel and nothing to help our schools, our school districts, and to help them pay for the bus transportation costs they're incurring.

Instead, it proposes to increase subsidies for public transit systems that reduce their fares and expand taxpayer-funded travel perks for Federal employees.

What's even worse is that existing Federal law would actually prohibit the funds authorized under this bill from being used to provide assistance to struggling school districts. Let me repeat that. This law, and the law on the books, don't allow the use of these funds for our school systems.

As the school year approaches, it's time to get our priorities right and to take care of our kids first.

My motion to recommit would fix this problem by sending this bill back to committee with instructions that they revise it, to specifically provide that in an area where school bus services are being cut back because of high fuel prices, that the funds under this bill shall be used first and foremost to help restore those school bus services, and that preference shall be given to rural and suburban areas where school buses have to travel greater distances to transport our children.

If the Democratic leadership's going to refuse to even allow a vote on proposals to increase domestic energy supplies so that we can lower gas prices for all Americans, then the least we can do is try to soften the blow for our Nation's schools, our school bus system and our children.

As currently drafted, this bill does not do that. We have a chance to fix it. We have a chance to help our school districts, particularly those in rural areas.

Now, the majority will undoubtedly try to rally their Members against this motion, but I ask, given that Congress is recessing tomorrow, what's wrong with sending this bill back to committee where the staff can review the amendment over the break and the full committee can carefully consider the importance of helping local schools cope with their busing needs and report this bill back in 10 days?

Or you can reject this on some sort of procedural grounds, and leave local schools in the lurch, and literally put our school children on the shoulder of the roadways, dodging traffic on their way to and from school this fall.

When schools start closing a day a week early, when parents can't figure out how to get their children to and from school, Americans will look back on this moment and see who stood with our rural and suburban schools and with our children and who stood against them.

This is a reasonable motion to recommit. The committee clearly has the time to take this up. It is of no disservice to the committee or this process to say our first priority in this House, if we're not going to allow greater access to American fuel, is to at least take care of America's school children and their busing needs.

Every paper in your district is probably writing about this issue or will be as skyrocketing fuel costs cost them the ability to run their bus routes. You can smirk and you can laugh, but this reality is coming to us here and now.

Reserving the right to object.

Yes.

To my friend and the Chair of the Transportation Committee, I would be happy to agree to the unanimous consent request provided that you and your side would also agree to allow us to add a proposal to reduce gas prices for struggling American families. Specifically, would the gentleman agree to add to the bill either the No More Excuses Energy Act, H.R. 3089, or at a minimum, the proposal to allow the deep ocean oil exploration, H.R. 6108, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act?

I yield to the gentleman.

While I appreciate the gentleman's position, clearly there is an opportunity for the committee to consider this and other issues related to transportation, so I would object.

Mr. Speaker, were the gentleman's words in order?

Is it in order to call a Member's motives in question, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we have arrived here today like an out-of-control car skidding to a stop. Let's not forget why we are here. We are here because of a changed Federal timber policy that has bankrupted the people that live in my district and many of yours, and as a result we now have fires at costs that are unbelievable. They are historic. We are burning more acres of our Federal forests than at any time in our Nation's history, and we are paying more for it. Forty-seven percent of the Federal budget for the Forest Service now goes to put out fires.

Yet we have shut down the Federal forests from active management. That is why we are here today, because the revenues that used to flow to our communities to pay for basic services, to be the good partner that Teddy Roosevelt envisioned the great forest reserves more than 100 years ago, to be a partnership with the local community, that partnership, that bond, that pledge has been broken. People are put out of work. Services are lost.

The tragedy that brings us here today is another broken promise, and that is when this bill was considered by the House Natural Resources Committee there was a consistent and common pledge that this bill would be brought to the floor with a different offset.

I have a quote here from the spokesperson from the committee that makes that very clear. It says very clearly, it is definitely our intention for the money not to come from increased fees on oil and gas companies.

It is definitely not our intention for the money to come from increased fees on oil and gas companies. That is what the committee said. I just couldn't read it. It is too far in front of me. I apologize.

That clearly is not the case. It is clearly not the case. So we have before us a bill with a broken promise, first of all, and it didn't have to be that way.

Yes, I have come to this floor repeatedly and called for this bill to come to this floor for consideration. I don't know why it was held hostage for 130 or so days. But I came here calling for this bill to come to the floor with the clear understanding, the promise and pledge of that committee that it would come here with a different offset, one that was palatable. That promise and pledge was broken.

Meanwhile, I know the Speaker was out in Oregon a while back and said where we go from here is we ought to phase out that system. That doesn't sound like the Speaker is very supportive to me.

So what we have here today is an offset of questionable legality. And I say that not because I am a lawyer, I am not, but because of court cases that have occurred that said when it comes to levying a fee on conservation of resources on the Outer Continental Shelf, that leases that exist today prohibit the application of future laws and regulations except future regulations related to conservation of the resources of the Outer Continental Shelf.

What does that mean in real people talk? It means if you are going to levy the fee that you plan to levy, you have to spend it in a legal way, which is on conservation efforts on the Outer Continental Shelf, or else the courts will say you are not following the decisions we already gave you, Mobil v. U.S., among others. So this is of questionable legal status.

So, I asked my colleague from Oregon, we talked, we have worked really closely on this issue over the years in

a bipartisan manner, and I said I think we are going to have a lot of problems on our side with this and I don't think it is legal. And indeed that is where we are today.

So we have exchanged letters. My colleague wrote me on May 30. Mr. DeFazio said if you have other suggestions for offsets that won't raise the ire of oil patch or mineral-dependent Members, I would welcome the input. So we talked on Monday and I said give me a day. This is rushed on the suspension of the rules. Give me a day to come up with an alternative, and we did.

We spent all day yesterday with the Congressional Budget Office, technical experts, legal experts, and we came up with a proposal that legally funds county payments, legally and fully funds PILT, legally and fully accesses energy resources on the Outer Continental Shelf. It is very similar to a proposal that my colleague from the Fourth District voted for that was passed by this house less than 2 years ago that would generate revenue legally. By the way, for those 98-99 leases, we do levy a fee so that they do pay, but we do it in a constitutional legal way so it is applied for conservation, coastal line improvements.

So we get at the 98-99 lease issue in a legal way under this proposal. The Coalition of County Roads and Schools, we presented this to them yesterday afternoon, they embraced it wholeheartedly. But it was rejected.

Under suspension of the rules, I am not allowed to offer it as an alternative. If this bill goes down today on a vote on the suspension calendar, it can be brought up. The placeholder that this represents is a seat on a bus going into a cliff. It is going off the cliff and into a chasm. Fortunately, there is a cable attached to that bus. If this goes down today, counties aren't lost. They can come back, bring it up under a rule and we can have a real and substantive debate about a way to fully fund it.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 30, 2008.

Hon. Greg Walden,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Greg: As you know, I worked with the administration to

come up with several other potential offsets to pay for a

multi-year extension of the county payments program.

Unfortunately, those offsets were strongly objected to on a

bi-partisan basis. If you have other suggestions for offsets

that won't raise the ire of oil patch or mineral-dependent

members, I would welcome the input.

I look forward to talking to you this afternoon or on

Monday.

Sincerely,

Peter A. DeFazio,

Member of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to inform our colleagues of a milestone event that occurred yesterday for a very special lady in the Grande Ronde Valley of Oregon. Mrs. Monica (Ruhl) Kinnel turned 100 years old yesterday and celebrated over the weekend in Island City, Oregon with many generations of her family and a legion of friends and admirers. Monica is an amazing lady who has led a remarkable and exciting life, and The Observer newspaper in La Grande, Oregon recently chronicled her adventures to date and I'd like to share with you some highlights from it.

In July 1892 a land purchase was made on the outskirts of Alicel in modern day Union County that became the seminal grounds for a ranching/ farming family that has spanned five generations in the Grande Ronde Valley. Monica's grandparents, Henry and Anna Ruhl, purchased 338 acres near Alicel for $10,000 and assumed a $2,500 debt on the land. Their son Harry continued operation of the Alicel ranch and married Maude Gaskill whose parents owned a farm less than two miles away.

Maude designed a ranch home that her father-in-law Henry built on his land. Built with brick from the La Grande brickyard and mortar made from sand from the Grande Ronde River, the home was completed in 1906. Two years later on June 2, 1908, Monica was born. Monica lives with her daughter and son-in-law, Sharon and Bob Beck, in the house she was born in 100 years ago.

Harry and Maude were fun-loving and curious and involved Monica in life's happenings. Monica remembers an outing to Boise with her father when he bought a toaster. Monica asked him what he was going to do with it since they didn't have electricity. Harry replied, ``We'll be ready.''

Monica was married to Bob Kinnel in 1930. They took over the family ranch, raising Hereford cattle and farming. They added more farm land adjacent to the Ruhl ranch and the whole became the Kinnel Ranch where they raised their family and lived until Bob's untimely demise at the age of 43 in 1955. Monica and Bob made a real team and raised three lovely daughters, Suzanne (who passed away in 1999), Joanne and Sharon. Sharon recounts that her parents had ``a love affair so powerful and so joyful that the two of them seemed to know something that no one else knew.''

Willis Ketchum, who now owns a neighboring farm, and the girls who were then in their early 20s, rallied around Monica and pitched in to save the ranch. In the fall of 1956 Monica hired on a scrapping, ranch- raised young man from Telocaset named Bob Beck. In just over a year he married Sharon and together they have added their own chapter to the family saga.

Monica traveled the world with daughter Joanne and the United States with other family and friends. Monica's legacy of love and laughter has been imparted to her grandchildren and great grandchildren as well. Anecdotes abound, like the time she brought grandson Rob a male tarantula from California. He built a terrarium and the next year she took Rob to the same desert to release him. Another is when grandson Brad and some contractor working on the house witnessed Monica--then in her 80s--leave the house with a fishing pole and satchel ``to go catch breakfast'' and came back within 30 minutes with a 22-inch rainbow trout.

Monica has always taught her family to live in the now, don't put things off til later as there may not be a later. Given the choice of describing her life as a hard-working, tenacious and productive ant or a carefree, live-for-the-moment grasshopper, Monica chose the grasshopper without hesitation. Her philosophy is ``live and let live.'' Fortunately for Monica and her family, she continues to live an exhilarating journey.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I wish Monica Kinnel a very happy 100th birthday!

Madam Speaker. I rise today to note the passing of a true American hero and fellow Oregonian, Dr. Charles Joseph Zerzan, Jr. Dr. Zerzan passed from this world on May 23, 2008 in the presence of his beloved wife and children. This man devoted his life to service of his family, the community and our Nation, and it is a singular sign of America's special blessing that individuals such as he have lived, enriching us all in the great enterprise of our Nation. I know this entire body will rise with me and give a solemn note of thanks to Dr. Zerzan, and our condolences to his family.

Charles Zerzan was born on December 1, 1921 in Portland, Oregon and attended primary and secondary school in the Portland and Salem areas. At the age of sixteen his parents lied about his age so that he could enlist in the Oregon National Guard; three years later America entered World War II and Dr. Zerzan found himself a 2nd Lieutenant in an Airborne division commanding men several years older than he in the harsh jungle and mountain terrain of the China-Burma-India theatre. At the end of the war, by which time he had earned the rank of Captain, he returned home to Oregon to attend Willamette University and earned a Bachelor of Arts degree. He then proceeded to medical school at the University of Marquette, where he earned the degree of Medical Doctor with a specialty in internal medicine. Following medical school Dr. Zerzan re-enlisted in the U.S. Army and served in many prestigious posts. Among these were two tours in Washington at Walter Reed Army Hospital; Chief of Medicine at Rodriguez Army Hospital; and he served as U.S. Army Medical Advisor to the Jordan Arab Army. Dr. Zerzan had the privilege of serving as personal physician to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, His Majesty King Hussein bin Talal of Jordan, members of the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous United States Senators and Congressmen. During the Cuban Missile crisis Dr. Zerzan was part of the invasion force planning to go ashore in Cuba, in the event of a conflict which thankfully never came to pass.

Dr. Zerzan was highly decorated for his service to the United States. Among the military honors he received are the Legion of Merit, the Army Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the World War II Victory Medal, the Pacific Theater Medal with two battle stars, the National Defense ribbon and the American Defense ribbon. These honors, which are awarded among other reasons for ``exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements,'' are but a small symbol of the patriotism and devotion of Dr. Zerzan to our country. As is true for so many of our veterans the true worth of his service cannot be measured.

Upon retirement from the Army in 1968 Dr. Zerzan returned to Oregon, where he served as Director of Continuing Medical Education at the Medical School of the University of Oregon-Portland (now known as Oregon Health Sciences University), and later as partner in the NW Permanente Clinic, Sunnyside Kaiser.

Despite his many professional achievements Dr. Zerzan viewed his greatest accomplishment to be his family. It was while attending college at Willamette University that Dr. Zerzan met the great love of his life, Ms. Joan Margaret Kathan of Rogue River, Oregon. As Mrs. Zerzan described it, the first time they kissed her ``shoes flew off,'' and she knew it was true love. They married on February 7, 1948 and during their 60 years of marriage proceeded to have 12 children. These children, who live in Oregon and throughout the United States, in turn gave Dr. Zerzan 30 grandchildren and three great-grandchildren.

The passing of Dr. Zerzan is a sad day for Oregon and all of America. But at the same time, it is a source of celebration for the accomplishment of his life's work. Dr. Zerzan was a man of courage, honor and great faith. As recorded in the Gospel of St. Matthew: ``Store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.'' Dr. Zerzan's treasure was in his devotion to his family, his country and his work. He has now passed on to receive his reward, and to enjoy the treasure he stored up during his time on earth. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for joining with me and our colleagues today to celebrate Dr. Zerzan's life and reward.

Madam Speaker, consistent with the House Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, to the best of my knowledge this request (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 to the House an explanation and justification of this funding in an effort to provide as much public disclosure and transparency as possible on congressionally directed funding and earmarks. I hereby submit the following information on a project I requested and the House Armed Services Committee included in H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009.

Account: Department of Energy (DOE); Other.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Department of Energy.

Address of Requesting Entity: U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20585.

Description of Project: The $10 million programmatic increase provided for in the bill will be used for the U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Management program at the Hanford Site located in Washington state in Fiscal Year 2009. The federal government has a legal and moral obligation to cleanup the massive wastes and contamination it created at Hanford during the Manhattan Project, World War II and the Cold War. The over-500-square-mile Hanford site is the world's largest and most complex environmental cleanup project, and the federal government must keep its commitment to clean it up. No matching funds are required.

Madam Speaker, consistent with the House Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, to the best of my knowledge this request (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 to the House an explanation and justification of this funding in an effort to provide as much public disclosure and transparency as possible on congressionally directed funding and earmarks. I hereby submit the following information on a project I requested and the House Armed Services Committee included in H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009.

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. 5658 has authorized $1,000,000 for the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnology Institute (ONAMI) Safer Nanomaterials and Nanomanufacturing Initiative. 26 percent of the funds will be used for equipment and 74 percent will be used for project expenses associated with personnel, including: salary, benefits, travel, and tuition off sets for research assistants.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by refusing to renew the county payments program, Congress has broken its promise to rural, timbered America.

I've told you in the past about Harney County, a county that has 78 percent of its land mass, the size of New Jersey, all Federally controlled, 70 percent of its road budget affected by this law that has not been reauthorized.

Let me tell you today about Hood River County, where Congress' failure to act to renew the county timber payments program has forced this county to develop multiple county budgets because we don't know what's going to happen in my home county. One thing is for sure, though, the county annually uses up to $130,000 of Federal forest payments to fund search and rescue operations in the Mount Hood National Forest and Mount Hood itself. You see, Hood River County is responsible for most of the search and rescue operations on that great mountain, and now those costs will be borne by the county because the Federal Government is shirking its responsibility.

That could change. We could pass H.R. 3058, a bill to reauthorize county timber payments. It has been on the Union Calendar for 127 days, held hostage by this leadership. The Democratic leadership refuses to bring it up for a vote.

Make good on the Federal promise. Let us vote on H.R. 3058.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.