Floor Statements

I appreciate my colleague's comments. I think you have laid out very clearly the problems that we face, and I couldn't agree more. You know, I will always remember being on these grounds of the United States Capitol on the morning of 9/11, September 11, 2001, and the attacks that occurred on our country, and I will always remember going back to the apartment I lived in at the time, three blocks from the Pentagon, and the smoke from the burning roof of the Pentagon wafted in all day because the air-conditioning was on.

I swore then, and I have kept that pledge and promise, that I would never forget what happened to this country. And like you and many of my colleagues on this floor and in this Congress, we said, How could this happen? What went wrong? What was the failure? How did we miss seeing this coming?

As my colleague from New Mexico knows all too well, because you are on the Intelligence Committee and I'm not, there are lots of investigations. And we said we will never let this happen. We brought in the outside experts, the best people in the land: tactical experts, policy experts. We did reviews, we second-guessed everybody in every position, and we changed the law. We changed the law to protect the lives of Americans and to prevent attack.

It is sad today to be here on this floor 10 days after the Protect America Act has expired and know that the only people who are gleeful about that are

probably residing in caves and camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan and who knows where else. They have to be looking at us saying, What fools, and thank you, thank you for opening the door and closing your eyes and your ears to our communications because you won't modernize a law that is anchored back in the 1970s.

Technology, as you have clearly pointed out, has changed. You think about these kids who buy these cell phones that are throw-away. Or if you are on the Internet, how do you know where somebody is or where they're downloading or wherever? Technology has changed; the law hasn't. And the people who seek to do our country and our people and our allies harm, they understand technology. That's one of the lessons we learned coming out of 9/11.

And so many people on both sides of the aisle changed a lot of Federal laws to try to leap forward so that we would be protected, so that our professionals, the intelligence community, would have every tool and asset to make sure it never happened again. How many people on this floor, how many Americans pledged after 9/11 to say we will do whatever it takes to make sure innocent American lives are never taken down by terrorists again? We all said that. I was in briefings on this floor, closed door, open door, where there was that unified feeling that we've just got to get with it. We've got to figure it out.

It's terrible tonight to be here knowing this law has expired and that there is a bipartisan fix. Senator Rockefeller, who chairs the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, wrote the bipartisan measure that passed with 68 votes. More than two-thirds of the United States Senate supported this bipartisan fix that provides Americans more protection than the existing law, or certainly the bill that the House had.

Now, I dare say on some matters Mr. Rockefeller is no friend of President Bush's, as he would probably tell you that. He certainly said it publicly. But he knows in the crafting of this bill that America has got to come first, our intelligence gathering has to come first. There are privacy protections, but we don't close the eyes and ears of our intelligence community listening overseas to see who's plotting to do us harm. That bill, I dare say, if brought to this floor, would pass in a heartbeat. Pass in a heartbeat.

And if I might just quote from a letter to the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from both the Attorney General and Admiral McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, said, among other things, this is a letter dated February 22: Our experience since Congress allowed the Protect America Act to expire without passing the bipartisan Senate bill demonstrates why the Nation is now more vulnerable to terrorist attack and other foreign threats. In our letter to Senator Reid on February 5, 2008, we explained that the expiration of the authorities in the Protect America Act would plunge critical intelligence programs into a state of uncertainty which could cause us to delay the gathering of or simply miss critical foreign intelligence information. Underlining for emphasis, they write: That is exactly what has happened since the Protect America Act expired 6 days ago without enactment of the bipartisan Senate bill. We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress's failure to act.

Madam Speaker, the thing that strikes me is, before we went out for the President's district work period, this Congress had time to spend a full day trying to figure out whether Roger Clemens was on steroids, used steroids, used human growth enhancement, whatever, and this Congress couldn't take up this law to protect America. And I dare say to my colleague and to my fellow colleagues, that if we were, God forbid, to get attacked again, that every committee will grab jurisdiction around here to do an oversight hearing to find out who failed. They need to pick up a mirror and look in it before it happens and ask that question. Will we fail America's security? Or will we take a bill that passed by two-thirds majority plus 2 in the Senate and put it on this floor today, tomorrow, as soon as possible? There is nothing even scheduled for Thursday of this week, I see. There are no bills scheduled. We have plenty of time. It is available. Why? For the life of me, I don't understand why we take this risk.

I appreciate that because I think you've summed it up quite well.

And once again, for our colleagues who have just joined us, this is all about a 30-year-old law that needs to be updated, because in the last 30 minutes technology has probably changed on us; but think about what's happened in 30 years: There was no Internet available to the public; there were no cell phones; there might have been a car radio phone or something somebody had somewhere. But we're dealing with highly trained, sophisticated terrorist organizations who show no allegiance to any country or rules or conventions, who have proven their will to use whatever force they can muster to attack innocent civilians in America and elsewhere. And we're now covering the eyes and ears of our intelligence professionals and reducing their ability to try to prevent another attack.

One of the issues that has come up in this debate, of course, is the participation of the private companies. And I would like to share some information from, again, a letter from the United States Attorney General and the National Intelligence Director where they take on this issue. Because you have to remember that all this stuff is networked. The government doesn't control every phone line and every Internet connection and all of that. You have to have a partnership. And I know after 9/11 the intelligence community and the President said, what do we need to do to work together to make sure we don't get attacked again? Are we going to get attacked again? You remember those days right after 9/11, we had the anthrax attack again here at the Capitol they never have solved. People lost their lives around America. We were really concerned, and rightfully so, that we had missed the big one, and it should never happen again. So they involved the telecommunications companies, because you can't do it without them.

Now, the Senate looked at this issue. The Attorney General and the head of National Intelligence wrote back to the chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and said: ``Private party assistance is necessary and critical to ensuring that the intelligence community can collect the information needed to protect our country from attack.'' Pretty strong words.

In its report on S. 2248, that's the Senate bill, the Intelligence Committee stated that, and this is from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: ``The intelligence community cannot obtain the intelligence it needs without assistance'' from electronic communication service providers.

The committee also concluded that ``without retroactive immunity, the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful government requests in the future without unnecessary court involvement and protracted litigation. The possible reduction in intelligence that might result in this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety of our Nation.'' That's not President Bush and his people saying that. That's the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence headed by J. Rockefeller, a Democrat from West Virginia.

The letter goes on to say: ``Senior intelligence officials also have testified regarding the importance of providing liability protection for such companies for this very reason.''

Do you want to do everything in your power in this Congress to safeguard America, not only here at home, but our allies overseas, and probably our men and women whose lives are on the line in the battlefields across the world? Because, you see, they're being threatened by terrorists, too. It is those communications we're trying to also find out where they plan the next car bomb attack. Where do they plan to take down one of our men and women in uniform whom we hold so high? What if their communication happens through the United States? Do we have to spend 72 hours before a court and a judge, and maybe some trial lawyers to boot, to figure out what we can listen in to and how we can act on it?

I will be happy to yield.

You're kidding. Is that actually the case? So they can shoot them, but they can't listen to their cell phone?

I just want to pick up in the timeline where you left off, because then Attorney General Mike Mukasey and the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, the admiral you referenced, head of our national intelligence wrote: ``Our experience in the past few days, since the expiration of the act, demonstrates that these concerns are neither speculative, nor theoretical. Allowing the act to expire without passing the bipartisan Senate bill has had real and negative consequences for our national security. Indeed, this has led directly to a degraded intelligence capability.''

You know, if he testified to that before the 9/11 Commission or any of these commissions that occurred after 9/11, this House and the Senate would have said, my gosh, we've got to make sure we fix that problem. But for some reason, here we are in 2008 and there are some in the leadership who act like we'll just go about our merry way, everything's fine, there won't be a problem. And hopefully there won't be a problem. But, to me, when the Director of National Intelligence says our intelligence capabilities are degraded, we are losing intelligence-gathering abilities, we are at risk, et cetera, et cetera, it is time to act.

February 22, 2008.

Hon. Silvestre Reyes,

Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Reyes: The President asked us to respond to

your letter of February 14, 2008, concerning the urgent need

to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of

1978 (FISA). Your assertion that there is no harm in allowing

the temporary authorities provided by the Protect America Act

to expire without enacting the Senate's FISA reform bill is

inaccurate and based on a number of misunderstandings

concerning our intelligence capabilities. We address those

misunderstandings below. We hope that you find this letter

helpful and that you will reconsider your opposition to the

bill passed last week by a strong bipartisan majority in the

Senate and, when Congress returns from its recess, support

immediately bringing the Senate bill to the floor, where it

enjoys the support of a majority of your fellow members. It

is critical to our national security that Congress acts as

soon as possible to pass the Senate bill.

intelligence collection

Our experience since Congress allowed the Protect America

Act to expire without passing the bipartisan Senate bill

demonstrates why the Nation is now more vulnerable to

terrorist attack and other foreign threats. In our letter to

Senator Reid on February 5, 2008, we explained that: ``the

expiration of the authorities in the Protect America Act

would plunge critical intelligence programs into a state of

uncertainty which could cause us to delay the gathering of,

or simply miss, critical foreign intelligence information.''

That is exactly what has happened since the Protect America

Act expired six days ago without enactment of the bipartisan

Senate bill. We have lost intelligence information this past

week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by

Congress's failure to act. Because of this uncertainty, some

partners have reduced cooperation. In particular, they have

delayed or refused compliance with our requests to initiate

new surveillances of terrorist and other foreign intelligence

targets under existing directives issued pursuant to the

Protect America Act. Although most partners intend to

cooperate for the time being, they have expressed deep

misgivings about doing so in light of the uncertainty and

have indicated that they may well cease to cooperate if the

uncertainty persists. We are working to mitigate these

problems and are hopeful that our efforts will be successful.

Nevertheless, the broader uncertainty caused by the Act's

expiration will persist unless and until the bipartisan

Senate bill is passed. This uncertainty may well continue to

cause us to miss information that we otherwise would be

collecting.

Thus, although it is correct that we can continue to

conduct certain activities authorized by the Protect America

Act for a period of one year from the time they were first

authorized, the Act's expiration has and may well continue to

adversely affect such activities. Any adverse effects will

result in a weakening of critical tools necessary to protect

the Nation. As we explained in our letter to Senator Reid,

expiration would create uncertainty concerning:

The ability to modify certifications and procedures issued

under the Protect America Act to reflect operational needs

and the implementation of procedures to ensure that agencies

are fully integrated protecting the Nation; the continuing

validity of liability protection for those who assist us

according to the procedures under the Protect America Act;

the continuing validity of the judicial mechanism for

compelling the assistance of private parties needed to

protect our national security; the ability to cover

intelligence gaps created by new communication paths or

technologies.

Our experience in the past few days since the expiration of

the Act demonstrates that these concerns are neither

speculative nor theoretical: allowing the Act to expire

without passing the bipartisan Senate bill has had real and

negative consequences for our national security. Indeed, this

has led directly to a degraded intelligence capability.

It is imperative that our intelligence agencies retain the

tools they need to collect vital intelligence information. As

we have explained before, the core authorities provided by

the Protect America Act have helped us to obtain exactly the

type of information we need to keep America safe, and it is

essential that Congress reauthorize the Act's core

authorities while also extending liability protection to

those companies who assisted our Nation following the attacks

of September 11, 2001. Using the authorities provided in the

Protect America Act, we have obtained information about

efforts of an individual to become a suicide operative,

efforts by terrorists to obtain guns and ammunition, and

terrorists transferring money. Other information obtained

using the authorities provided by the Protect America Act has

led to the disruption of planned terrorist attacks. The

bipartisan Senate bill would preserve these core authorities

and improve on the Protect America Act in certain critical

ways, including by providing liability protection to

companies that assisted in defending the country after

September 11.

In your letter, you assert that the Intelligence

Community's ability to protect the Nation has not been

weakened, because the Intelligence Community continues to

have the ability to conduct surveillance abroad in accordance

with Executive Order 12333. We respectfully disagree.

Surveillance conducted under Executive Order 12333 in a

manner that does not implicate FISA or the Protect America

Act is not always as effective, efficient, or safe for our

intelligence professionals as acquisitions conducted under

the Protect America Act. And, in any event, surveillance

under the Protect America Act served as an essential adjunct

to our other intelligence tools. This is particularly true in

light of the changes since 1978 in the manner in which

communications are transmitted. As a result of these changes,

the Government often has been required to obtain a FISA Court

order prior to surveillance of foreign terrorists and other

national security threats located outside the United States.

This hampered our intelligence collection targeting these

individuals overseas in a way that Congress never intended,

and it is what led to the dangerous intelligence gaps last

summer. Congress addressed this issue temporarily by passing

the Protect America Act but long-term FISA reform is critical

to the national security.

We have provided Congress with examples in which

difficulties with collections under the Executive Order

resulted in the Intelligence Community missing crucial

information. For instance, one of the September 11th

hijackers communicated with a known overseas terrorist

facility while he was living in the United States. Because

that collection was conducted under Executive Order 12333,

the Intelligence Community could not identify the domestic

end of the communication prior to September 11, 2001, when it

could have stopped that attack. The failure to collect such

communications was one of the central criticisms of the

Congressional Joint Inquiry that looked into intelligence

failures associated with the attacks of September 11. The

bipartisan bill passed by the Senate would address such flaws

in our capabilities that existed before the enactment of the

Protect America Act and that are now resurfacing. We have

provided Congress with additional and detailed examples of

how the Protect America Act temporarily fixed this problem

and have demonstrated the operational need to provide a long-

term legislative foundation for these authorities by passing

the bipartisan Senate bill.

In your letter, you also posit that our intelligence

capabilities have not been weakened, because the Government

can employ the outdated provisions of FISA as they existed

before the Protect America Act. We respectfully disagree. It

was that very framework that created dangerous intelligence

gaps in the past and that led Congress to pass the Protect

America Act last summer.

As we have explained in letters, briefings and hearings,

FISA's requirements, unlike those of the Protect America Act

and the bipartisan Senate bill, impair our ability to collect

information on foreign intelligence targets located overseas.

Most importantly, FISA was designed to govern foreign

intelligence surveillance of persons in the United States and

therefore requires a showing of ``probable cause'' before

such surveillance can begin. This standard makes sense in the

context of targeting persons in the United States for

surveillance, where the Fourth Amendment itself often

requires probable cause and where the civil liberties of

Americans are most implicated. But it makes no sense to

require a showing of probable cause for surveillance of

overseas foreign targets who are not entitled to the Fourth

Amendment protections guaranteed by our Constitution. Put

simply, imposing this requirement in the context of

surveillance of foreign targets located overseas results in

the loss of potentially vital intelligence by, for example,

delaying intelligence collection and thereby losing some

intelligence forever. In addition, the requirement to make

such a showing requires us to divert our linguists and

analysts covering al-Qa'ida and other foreign threats from

their core role--protecting the Nation--to the task of

providing detailed facts for FISA Court applications related

to surveillance of such foreign targets. Our intelligence

professionals need to be able to obtain foreign intelligence

from foreign targets with speed and agility. If we revert to

a legal framework in which the Intelligence Community

needs to make probable cause showings for foreign

terrorists and other national security threats located

overseas, we are certain to experience more intelligence

gaps and miss collecting information.

You imply that the emergency authorization process under

FISA is an adequate substitute for the legislative

authorities that have lapsed. This assertion reflects a basic

misunderstanding about FISA's emergency authorization

provisions. Specifically, you assert that the National

Security Agency (NSA) or the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) ``may begin surveillance immediately'' in an emergency

situation. FISA requires far more, and it would be illegal to

proceed as you suggest. Before surveillance begins the

Attorney General must determine that there is probable cause

that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or an

agent of a foreign power and that FISA's other requirements

are met. As explained above, the process of compiling the

facts necessary for such a determination and preparing

applications for emergency authorizations takes time and

results in delays. Again, it makes no sense to impose this

requirement in the context of foreign intelligence

surveillance of targets located overseas. Because of the

hurdles under FISA's emergency authorization provisions and

the requirement to go to the FISA Court within 72 hours, our

resource constraints limit our use of emergency

authorizations to certain high-priority circumstances and

cannot simply be employed for every foreign intelligence

target.

It is also inaccurate to state that because Congress has

amended FISA several times, there is no need to modernize

FISA. This statement runs counter to the very basis for

Congress's passage last August of the Protect America Act. It

was not until the passage of this Act that Congress amended

those provisions of FISA that had become outdated due to the

communications revolution we have experienced since 1978. As

we explained, those outdated provisions resulted in dangerous

intelligence gaps by causing constitutional protections to be

extended to foreign terrorists overseas. It is critical that

Congress enact long-term FISA modernization to ensure that

the Intelligence Community can collect effectively the

foreign intelligence information it needs to protect the

Nation. The bill passed by the Senate would achieve this

goal, while safeguarding the privacy interests of Americans.

liability protection

Your assertion that the failure to provide liability

protection for those private-sector

firms that helped defend the Nation after the September 11

attacks does not affect our intelligence collection

capability is inaccurate and contrary to the experience of

intelligence professionals and to the conclusions the Senate

Select Committee on Intelligence reached after careful study

of the matter. It also ignores that providing liability

protection to those companies sued for answering their

country's call for assistance in the aftermath of September

11 is simply the right thing to do. Through briefings and

documents, we have provided the members of your committee

with access to the information that shows that immunity is

the fair and just result.

Private party assistance is necessary and critical to

ensuring that the Intelligence Community can collect the

information needed to protect our country from attack. In its

report on S. 2248, the Intelligence Committee stated that

``the intelligence community cannot obtain the intelligence

it needs without assistance'' from electronic communication

service providers. The Committee also concluded that

``without retroactive immunity, the private sector might be

unwilling to cooperate with lawful Government requests in the

future without unnecessary court involvement and protracted

litigation. The possible reduction in intelligence that might

result from this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety

of our Nation.'' Senior intelligence officials also have

testified regarding the importance of providing liability

protection to such companies for this very reason.

Even prior to the expiration of the Protect America Act, we

experienced significant difficulties in working with the

private sector because of the continued failure to provide

liability protection for such companies. These difficulties

have only grown since expiration of the Act without passage

of the bipartisan Senate bill, which would provide fair and

just liability protection. Exposing the private sector to the

continued risk of billion-dollar class action suits for

assisting in efforts to defend the country understandably

makes the private sector much more reluctant to cooperate.

Without their cooperation, our efforts to protect the country

cannot succeed.

pending legislation

Finally, as you note, the House passed a bill in November

to amend FISA, but we immediately made clear that the bill is

unworkable and unacceptable. Over three months ago, the

Administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy

(SAP) that stated that the House bill ``falls far short of

providing the Intelligence Community with the tools it needs

to collect effectively the foreign intelligence information

vital for the security of the Nation'' and that ``the

Director of National Intelligence and the President's other

senior advisers would recommend that the President veto the

bill.'' We adhere to that view today.

The House bill has several grave deficiencies. First,

although numerous senior intelligence officials have

testified regarding the importance of affording liability

protection for companies that assisted the Government in the

aftermath of September 11, the House bill does not address

the critical issue of liability protection. Second, the House

bill contains certain provisions and serious technical flaws

that would fatally undermine our ability to collect

effectively the intelligence needed to protect the Nation. In

contrast, the Senate bill deals with the issue of liability

protection in a way that is fair and that protects the

national security. In addition, the Senate bill is carefully

drafted and has been amended to avoid technical flaws similar

to the ones in the House bill. We note that the privacy

protections for Americans in the Senate bill exceed the

protections contained in both the Protect America Act and the

House bill.

The Department of Justice and the Intelligence Community

are taking the steps we can to try to keep the country safe

during this current period of uncertainty. These measures are

remedial at best, however, and do not provide the tools our

intelligence professionals need to protect the Nation or the

certainty needed by our intelligence professionals and our

private partners. The Senate passed a strong and balanced

bill by an overwhelming and bipartisan margin. That bill

would modernize FISA, ensure the future cooperation of the

private sector, and guard the civil liberties we value. We

hope that you will support giving your fellow members the

chance to vote on this bill.

Sincerely,

J.M. McConnell,

Director of National Intelligence.

He said what?

You raised an interesting point about this sort of smoke-and-mirrors argument of how quickly the FISA Court can act on a surveillance order. The Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, was quoted as saying in a statement on FISA negotiations on February 22, ``The FISA Court can approve surveillance orders quickly.'' But I think what I learned tonight from you is that while that may be the case, they don't get that request until somebody's built up the whole probable cause work; right?

I think, though, it's important for us, too, to talk about the safeguards for American citizens on American soil because I hear that when I go home: Are they listening in when I call my aunt or somebody across the street? This warrantless wire eavesdropping. Can you speak to that, about the protections that are still there and, in fact, strengthened under the Senate version?

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a very special public servant of extraordinary ability and dedication, Crater Lake National Park Superintendent Chuck Lundy. This weekend I will attend in picturesque Klamath County, Oregon, a celebration in honor of Superintendent Lundy's retirement after 33 years of exemplary service to the National Park Service and millions of park visitors from around the world. As Superintendent Lundy officially hangs up his Park Service ranger hat for the last time, I want to share with you, Madam Speaker, and our colleagues some background about this special leader.

Chuck Lundy was raised in the small farming town of Swartz Creek, Michigan, which cemented early in his life his affinity for rural areas and the natural beauty of our open spaces. Chuck's parents instilled in him at an early age the virtues of public service and hard work. His father, Frank, served in the U.S. Marine Corps and was a decorated veteran of the Pacific Campaign, and sustained serious wounds on the initial landing at Iwo Jima. Chuck himself enlisted and served in the U.S. Air Force from 1967-1971, and then graduated second in his class from Northern Arizona University with summa cum laude honors. Chuck actually began his professional career while still in college as a seasonal park ranger. After graduating, Chuck continued what ultimately would be a tremendous 33-year career of service in the National Park Service which concluded with nearly 10 years as Superintendent of Crater Lake National Park, which I'm proud to represent in Congress.

During the course of Chuck's career at many national parks and monuments, he was presented many challenges and opportunities. It is well known among his peers, supervisors and local community leaders that each time Chuck accepted a new assignment, he left his prior one having solidly achieved the guiding principle of the Park Service: ``Leave the Park better than you found it''. I can personally attest to the amazing progress made at Crater Lake National Park under Chuck's leadership, and I believe there is not a more dedicated or capable steward of our natural gems in the National Park Service than Chuck Lundy.

In November of 1998, Chuck came to Crater Lake National Park as Superintendent. This is the same month I was first elected to Congress. As an avid park and outdoor recreation enthusiast myself, and having secured a seat on the Resources Committee my first term in the House, Chuck and I had the opportunity to work closely together early on. We became fast friends as Chuck constantly kept me posted on his vision to bring resources for the public to Crater Lake, one of the most spectacular natural wonders in the world.

President Theodore Roosevelt in 1902 signed the bill into law giving Crater Lake national park status. Crater Lake is located in southern Oregon on the crest of the Cascade Mountain range and it lies in a caldera, or volcanic basin, created when the 12,000 foot high Mt. Mazama collapsed 7,700 years ago following a massive eruption. It is a place of immeasurable beauty, and an outstanding outdoor laboratory and classroom. At 1,943 feet deep, it is the deepest lake in the United States. At Crater Lake, Chuck had a great ``product'' to offer and showcase to the public, but maximizing the financial resources and procedural challenges to provide the public the best experience possible at an affordable price while still preserving this natural gem was no small task. Chuck's creativity, thoughtfulness and dedication to addressing all of these aspects resulted in great success.

The list of major developments under Chuck's watch at Crater Lake is a long one, I'd like to note just a few of them: a fantastic Centennial Celebration for the park in 2002, which provided the springboard to launch the Crater Lake Trust, the park's distinguished philanthropic group; the creation of the Crater Lake license plate, a smashing success that led to the creation of a multi-million dollar endowment fund to support future operations at the park's new Science and Learning Center; keeping the Rim Redevelopment Project moving to relocate the parking lot away from close proximity to the lake along with beautiful architectural improvements; completion of an incredibly accurate bathymetry, map of the lake, which yields tremendous insights into the eruption of Mt. Mazama and the formation of the lake; and completion of a progressive general management plan for the park to replace a nearly 30-year-old predecessor. Chuck would deflect praise for these substantial accomplishments to others, and while he has benefited from the support of many great people, these successes would not have reached the heights they have without Chuck's leadership and deep involvement.

My colleagues, Superintendent Chuck Lundy has been a tremendous servant to the National Park Service and the millions of people who enjoy our parks and monuments. On behalf of our country, I thank Chuck for all that he has done. Chuck will be sorely missed, and I wish him and the entire Lundy family many happy years to come.

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to start by noting there is not, I don't think, a Member on either side of the aisle that doesn't support continuing the existing SCHIP program, continuing providing insurance coverage for 4.04 million American children. What we're debating is how you pay for an expansion beyond that, how you go from 200 percent of poverty level to a family of four that would be at 300 percent of poverty level. For the record, that's $61,950. Some of us believe that before you expand to 300 percent of poverty, or a family of four making nearly $62,000 a year, we should make sure that those kids who are in families that make enough that they don't qualify for Medicaid, that those from there on up to 200 or 250 percent of poverty actually are being insured by the States to whom we send this money back to.

There has been discussion that 10 million kids will be covered under the bill that the President vetoed. I wish somebody would give me a Congressional Budget Office summary that says that, because what CBO found when they analyzed this bill was that by 2012 there would be a total of 7.4 million kids insured under SCHIP under the bill we're debating tonight. If you've got a different document from CBO, I'd love see it. I've not seen it.

Further, CBO claims that the way this bill is structured, there would be 2 million children in America, 2 million of this 7.4 that either already have health insurance or have access to health insurance through their families or their families' employers. Two million. This is Congressional Budget Office data.

The effect of the way this bill is structured, those 2 million kids would probably be shifted onto a government plan. We ought to be trying to get kids who don't have access to health insurance first, and we should be trying to get the kids who are at the lower end of the economic scale insured first. Those are principles that we're fighting for in this.

Finally, two other points. I don't think it's asking too much that when a parent brings in their children and their children don't have ID, that the parent simply present ID, a driver's license, something that proves who they are when they certify these are their kids. That's something we're asking for.

The third and final point, this program, the way it's crafted under this legislation, even with the tax that's proposed, by the next 10 years, the end of 10 years, you have borrowed forward $80 billion, with a B, that has been borrowed, and in 2013, the program's out of money.

We have got enough of those Federal programs today. I mean Members on both sides of the aisle would have to agree that we haven't fixed the Medicare fix yet for docs. Their funding is going to be cut. I've got seniors in my district who can't get access to a physician.

Why would we enact a program today that we know, based on independent analysis, comes up $80 billion short? You take the money for 10 years and you spend it in the first 5. What happens after that? Isn't it better to create a program that takes care of kids who are on the lowest end of the economic scale but whose parents make too much to be in Medicaid, make sure they're covered first, make sure we're not crowding out people who have access to health insurance for their kids through their employer or some other way, and that they don't shift to save money for themselves from a government-run program?

At the end of the day, I think we all want to take care of kids' health needs. We want to do it in a responsible way, fiscally responsible, that can be sustainable so that we don't end up with kids on a cliff in 5 years because you spent the money that was allocated over 10 in the first 5 because you borrowed. That doesn't make sense.

I never knowingly in 21 years in small business entered into a contract that I knew I couldn't fulfill. This is a contract that can't be fulfilled the way it is crafted. We can do better than this. It doesn't have to be a campaign and political issue. It can be a policy issue that works.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to tell you about a very significant event taking place in Lakeview, OR, today. Because this event is the culmination of unselfish hard work by a dedicated group who shared a vision of a better tomorrow for Lake County, I am very proud to stand to tell you that a model for future management of our natural resources is becoming a reality today.

Three Saturdays ago, I traveled to Lakeview to tour a visionary effort, the Lakeview Biomass Project, which has become the talk of energy and natural resource organizations throughout the Nation. The dedicated people behind the Lakeview Biomass Project have found an innovative way to move us swiftly in the direction toward our rich national heritage of healthy forests, vibrant local economies, and energy independence.

As our forests become choked and overgrown to the point that they are being decimated by fire and insect infestations, the people in Lake County made a decision to reverse that downward spiral through an amazing partnership of business, Federal and State agencies, and the local community.

Madam Speaker, the word ``synergy'' has been used for years as a buzzword to denote a process that creates a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. This is certainly the case in Lakeview. Although their concept was innovative, it was also founded on plain old Eastern Oregon common sense.

At the risk of minimizing the massive scope of the effort that went into this project, let me boil it down to its simplest elements. Brush and small diameter trees will be taken out of the local forests in the process of making them healthier and fire resilient. That material will either be cleanly burned in a plant that produces steam and electricity or milled into dimension lumber at the Collins Fremont Sawmill. The steam will heat the mill's kiln dryer and will turn the turbines of the generator. Jobs at the mill will be more secure, and new jobs will be generated to operate the biomass plant and to treat our forests.

Madam Speaker, I toured the new mill and was very enthused to see that small trees that likely would have burned in inevitable catastrophic wildfires can now be put to clean and productive use through state-of-the-art technology. I salute the Collins family for their vision and for their unflagging support of the Lakeview area in making a significant investment in the future, at a time when lumber producers throughout the Northwest have gone out of business.

I am very impressed with Marubeni Sustainable Energy for their commitment to build a 13 megawatt plant at the site of the mill at a cost of over $30 million. My colleagues will be pleased to know that the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management participated extensively in this process and worked with Lake County Resources Initiative to provide a 10-year supply through stewardship contracting, and they are working toward a 20-year memorandum of understanding that will pave the way for productive use well into the future. Madam Speaker, you can take pride in knowing that the energy incentives provided by this body and signed by the President have been a significant stimulus in making this concept work.

There are so many people to recognize for this success, but certainly I must mention the Lake County Commissioners who were so very proud to show me this project earlier this month. Jim Walls of the Lake County Resource Initiative has been tireless in his efforts to move this project forward. My friend, Governor Ted Kulongoski, saw the merit of this project early on and designated it as an Oregon Solutions Project that brought all of the stakeholders together and, with the direction of Steve Greenwood, kept the focus on target. Hal Salwasser of Oregon State University served as the driving force in his role as convener. I also want to acknowledge local leaders in the environmental movement who have worked hard to develop a project that will have

a long term beneficial impact on our federal forests.

I know, Madam Speaker, that time allows me to only mention a few of the many who made this project a success, but the most exciting part of the whole story is that this is just the beginning. The City of Lakeview and Lake County are hard at work at putting other renewable sources of energy to work. They plan to expand on their already successful use of geothermal and are working toward solar generation at a former Air Force radar site in the small community of Christmas Valley.

We can all take pride in knowing that communities like Lakeview are taking their destiny into their own hands and creating models for the future that can sustain both Northwest communities and forests.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with you and my colleagues the story of a remarkable woman and leader from eastern Oregon, Sharon Livingston. Sharon is the President of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association and a tremendous friend to rural America. When this week draws to a close, so too will Sharon's tenure as president. Before that occurs, I want to pay tribute to Sharon for the contributions she has made to an outstanding industry.

Sharon embodies the best in rural Oregon frontier women; she loves the land, she embraces the Oregon ``can do'' spirit, and she values the dignity of everyone she meets. Sharon is a patriot with unflagging pride in her country. She is a great steward of the land, proud of her industry, and intent on doggedly defending the private property rights, water rights, and grazing rights of ranchers. Sharon leads her industry with assertiveness and kindness, always mindful that the American rancher raises the healthiest and highest quality beef in the world. She, like her fellow Oregon beef producers, places a very high priority on providing food of unsurpassed quality for dinning room tables around the world.

Sharon's strong values were established at an early age, having grown up in the small community of Long Creek, OR, where she has lived for more than 60 years. The first three

years of her life were spent living in a 2-room house on her grandmother's homestead. The water source for their house was a spring outside the front door and a path led to the bathroom, That property is still a part of her ranch and she values it far beyond the price it might bring on the open market.

Madam Speaker, in addition to being a lifelong rancher, Sharon Livingston has also been a teacher and a coach, graduating from Eastern Oregon University following 12 years of school in Long Creek. As a teacher and coach, her skills as a trainer and motivator became her strengths as a leader in the ranching industry. She always does her homework, she works hard to understand complex issues, and she is adept at helping others to grasp the need to go in new directions.

When I was in Burns, OR this summer to meet with ranchers who had their grazing land obliterated by devastating wildfires, Sharon was there to offer encouragement and to ensure that the needed relief was on its way. As you can imagine, Madam Speaker, with livelihoods in serious jeopardy, emotions can run high. Sharon was there as a voice of reason and a message of hope. She made a difference. Her straightforward ways, her openness, and her confidence in the future helped immensely to set us all at ease about dealing with the effects of the catastrophic fire.

Her pride in her industry and her community is strong and deep, but she would tell you that her greatest pride and greatest joy is derived from her family. Tragically, she lost her husband, Fred Livingston, to cancer in 1992. Sharon married Fred in 1957. Sharon gives him high praise when she describes Fred as a cowboy, a calf roper, and a fine man.

Sharon and Fred raised three children: Rilla, Clayton, and Fred John (FJ). Rilla and Clayton live in the Pendleton area, and FJ is Sharon's partner on the ranch. Sharon has four grandchildren whom she treasures. Sharon loves her ranch, her cattle, and her horses. She says that her heart swells with pride when her oldest grandson rides and helps with the cattle. She takes great joy and satisfaction seeing yet another generation value the lifestyle that has meant so much to her. She looks forward to the very near future when her twin granddaughters and another grandson learn to ride and rope. You can be sure that Sharon will be there to teach them.

Madam Speaker, I am so proud of my friend, Sharon Livingston. She is a woman of her word and a woman of conviction. You only have to meet Sharon once to know that she has a keen intellect and a caring heart that makes her a natural born leader. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting this amazing woman who has served so ably as president of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the citizens of Crook County, Oregon who are celebrating the 125th anniversary of the establishment of their county this month.

The Enabling Act, creating Crook County from the southern portions of Wasco County, was approved and signed by the Governor of Oregon on October 24, 1882. He appointed 10 officials to govern the county: County Judge; 2 Commissioners; Assessor; County Clerk; Coroner; School Superintendent; Sheriff; Surveyor; and Treasurer.

Prineville, the county seat, is the oldest community in Central Oregon. In 1868 Barney Prine came to the Crooked River Valley and set up a blacksmith shop, saloon, and primitive country store along the banks of the Crooked River, A Post Office was established in 1871 and was named Prine in Barney's honor. The name of the Post Office was changed to Prineville in 1872.

The county is named after Major General George Crook, U.S. Army. General Crook was an 1852 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, a hero of the Snake Indian Wars, and, at the time of his death in 1890, was Commander of the Army's Department of the West.

When it was founded in 1882, Crook County encompassed an area of 8,600 square miles and had a population of only 2,500. In 1914 and 1916 Jefferson and Deschutes counties were carved out of Crook County leaving it at just under 3,000 square miles today, with a population of approximately 23,000.

Some of the more noteworthy events in the county's early history include: the building of the first county courthouse in the county seat of Prineville at a cost of $5,474 in 1886; the first electrical service in Prineville in 1890; the first telephone service in the county in 1899; the opening of the first high school in 1905; and the first movie theater in 1909.

Between 1930 and 1940 Prineville became the nation's largest shipping point of pine lumber; in 1934 the Prineville Airport was dedicated; in 1940 the first dial telephones were installed in the county; and in 1952 the late Les Schwab opened his first tire store in Prineville, the very beginning of what is now one of the leading independent tire dealerships in the country with more that 7,000 employees and 400 stores throughout the western United States.

Today, Madam Speaker, the citizens of Crook County celebrate 125 years of rich pioneer heritage in their Central Oregon home, and look forward to an increasingly bright future in a growing and revitalized county. I am proud to represent the citizens of Crook County in the U.S. House of Representatives, and look forward to county's continued success.

Thank you, Mr. Bishop. I appreciate your work on

the issues we have worked on in the past.

The California fires are tragic in what is happening to the people who live there, the loss of life, the loss of habitat, the pollution that is going into the air. I have been told that the California wildfires have burned the equivalent of 10 times the square mileage of the District of Columbia. Ten times the size of the District of Columbia has gone up in smoke in California so far.

In my district in Oregon this year, 11 times the size of the District of Columbia has gone up in fire. Now fortunately we have not seen the loss of life and we haven't seen the loss of homes. But what we have seen is the loss of land for grazing and habitat and clean water as our watersheds have gone up in smoke.

This picture here I brought down to the floor for my colleagues to see. It is of two young children who are from Harney County, Oregon. This is the Egley fire which burned in my district 140,000 acres; 140,000 acres, the Egley fire burned in Harney County. America's forest lands going up in smoke.

There are 192 million acres of national forest system lands. According to the Forest Service, 52 million of those acres are at high risk to catastrophic wildfires. Twelve million acres in Oregon are considered high risk; 26 million acres, or just under the size of the State of Kentucky, are at risk to insect infestation.

You have to understand that our forests are not static. They continue to grow and suffer bug infestation, drought devastation, and ultimately fire. The total net national forest growth in the United States is currently about 20 billion board feet a year. Total mortality is about 10 billion board feet. So our forests are expanding at 20 billion board feet a year, America's federally owned forests, and 10 billion board feet die. We harvest less than 2 billion board feet.

That is part of our topic today, the lack of active management in our Federal forests. I want to show you what happens on a watershed. This is up in northeastern Oregon. In 1989, the Tanner Gulch fire wiped out the spring Chinook salmon run in Oregon's Upper Grand Ronde River. This used to be habitat for salmon. There was a creek that ran along here. Unfortunately, it is just mud and sludge and debris and blackened trees and ashen slopes.

Now in an extreme fire, scientists tell us that the most catastrophic fire that occurs in our forests emits about 100 tons of carbon and greenhouse gases. For those concerned about trying to do something about carbon emissions in our atmosphere and trying to reduce other pollutants in our atmosphere, we need to do something to manage our forests better to prevent these catastrophic fires. That is on the extreme, the 100 tons per acre.

A healthy green forest will sequester between 4 and 6 tons of carbon per acre. So these are the choices we are facing: How do you manage the forests for better forest health, for reduced fire and reduced fire intensity, and get them back into balance with nature. My colleague from Utah said what do you do about that.

Well, a few years ago we passed the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. It was bipartisan in its nature and scope. It was designed to allow Federal agencies, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management, to more rapidly, while still involving the public, go in and do the kind of thinning and debris removal to address this issue of the overgrown forests you heard me mention, the 20 billion board feet a year that grows in our forests and the 10 billion that dies, so we can go in, especially in the wildland-urban interface, near communities where homes are, the kind of homes we see burning today, although they are not necessarily in a Federal forest, but it is a similar concept. So to be able to go in quickly and have scientifically proven plans, based on community wildfire plans, in many cases, to go in and remove that debris and reduce that fire hazard.

That legislation which I coauthored with former Representative Scott McInnis from Colorado and Senator Feinstein and Senator Wyden were both very much involved, has worked in many cases, especially the community wildfire planning piece because that piece brought diverse groups together, environmentalists, community leaders, firefighters. We have a group here from Bend who have been on the forefront of this very effort, firefighters from my own district. They came together and developed plans on how do we safeguard the communities and the things we really want to protect, our watersheds and habitat. They came together, and now they can even more quickly implement those community wildfire plans.

The problem we face in this Congress is virtually every Member of the leadership of this Congress voted ``no'' on the final conference report that passed the Senate unanimously, and that includes the Speaker, majority leader, the caucus chairman, the Resources Committee chairman, the subcommittee chairman, and the Rules Committee chairwoman all voted against the Healthy Forest Restoration Act conference report. This is what we worked out with the Senate. It passed and became law. We now have these community wildfire plans in place. We need to continue to work and expand them elsewhere. It is so important.

So far this year in America's forests and grasslands on Federal land, more than 8 million acres have burned. We are setting records. This is down a little bit from last year, but over the last few years, we are at record levels. American taxpayers have spent $1.22 billion fighting fires, and that is before these awful fires in California have broken out. So it is very expensive when we don't manage properly and have fires break out.

Let me tell you what has happened. In my district, it is 70,000 square miles of eastern Oregon. It is beautiful. We have nine national forests there. We have national grasslands. We have wilderness areas. We have Crater Lake National Park and high desert plateaus, wheat land, and we have had all these fires. They have destroyed communities and many homes in the past. They have inflicted death. They have burned, and it takes years to recover. In fact, we have cattle ranchers in central and eastern Oregon who may be off their allotments for 2 years because it will take that long for the range to recover from fires that, frankly, shouldn't have gotten so out of hand if we had done the right management to begin with.

In the meantime, the infrastructure that needs to be there for our scientists and professional forest managers to conduct this forest thinning is going away because, you see, the allowable harvest of timber off Federal land has declined in my part of the world by 80 percent, 80 percent reduction. And with it, the timber receipts to these communities.

So this chart going back to 1976 shows the various timber receipt levels. And you get out here, and you see there is virtually no revenue coming off our Federal land, revenue that used to help pay for restoration work, that used to help pay for conservation efforts, that used to help pay for parks and other things, the activities people like to do when they recreate. And, most importantly, revenues that used to be shared with the local counties to fund their schools and their roads.

In the largest county in my district, Jackson County, this year because timber receipts are virtually eliminated, and because the county replacement program was stalled in its reauthorization, which is fundamentally flawed in my opinion, they had to close all the libraries. This is not some thousand-person county. This is largest populated county in my district. Every library had to close.

Another county down on the south Oregon coast, they were looking at declaring bankruptcy. Another was going to have to lay off all their sheriff's deputies except those mandated by State law to run the jail to provide security because this Congress hasn't passed the Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization. I would hope that could be brought to the floor and passed so that those of us in the West, and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) has a wonderful map showing Federal land ownership, but where most of the Federal lands are in the West, my district is over half Federal land. And it is important.

When Teddy Roosevelt created the national forest reserves in 1905, he said it needs to be a partnership with the communities in the management of these lands and in the revenues that are shared, and these lands need to be

properly managed. I think he would roll over in his grave today if he knew what had happened in terms of the disassociation with the communities, in terms of the bug-infested nature of our forests, the droughts that have occurred that have left them distressed, and the disease that has come in, and then how they burn. And then we leave them.

In the last Congress, I wrote, and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), a Democrat, former Sierra Club chapter president, helped me write the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act.

So we, like private forest landowners and State forest landowners and county forest landowners and others, could get in right after a fire, take out where appropriate, where environmentally appropriate, in sensitive ways the dead trees that still have value, create the jobs, recover the wood, and replant sooner. We passed it in this House, big bipartisan margin to pass it. It went up on the rocks in the great graveyard we call the Senate, where all good ideas go to founder and die, and it did.

The fires in California, fires in my district, the fact that forests continue to grow exponentially, global climate change means they're going to be more under threat from higher temperature and, therefore, more drought and more bug infestation, more disease and more fire. This Congress, this country needs to adopt new policies.

Well, we need to pass the legislation that's just come out of the Natural Resources Committee that would reauthorize the program that shared receipts or made up for the receipts that no longer are being generated with the county roads and schools. That legislation, and you are the ranking member on the subcommittee, worked very hard to make sure it's properly crafted, would provide for replacement revenue because, you see, that partnership shouldn't be broken, that promise shouldn't be shattered.

Communities where there are Federal lands, especially timbered communities, that have no real other ability to have an economic base in some cases, and yet, and I diverge a little here, but yet are still responsible when somebody's lost. Who's out there doing the recovery? The sheriff, out of the county. We've seen that tragically in my district, in my State, with the Kim family that was lost in southern Oregon. Family went out for a drive, got snowed in on a road, and the father died, and I believe the child and mother survived after several days. A number of climbers on Mt. Hood fell to their death. Their bodies have yet to be recovered from last year.

I was down in central Oregon and southern Oregon where sheriffs are out in the forests dealing with organized crime elements that have moved in to grow marijuana in highly sophisticated, generally Mexican, drug trafficking organizations, highly armed, very sophisticated. It's our sheriffs that are going in and trying and their deputies to deal with these issues.

So these costs of recovery, of rescue, of dealing with law enforcement issues on Federal ground are borne in large measure by the counties. And yet when you stop doing productive work on our national forests and they continue to grow and die at the same time, you don't have the revenue; yet, you still have greater and greater demand, people moving in to the wild land urban interface.

So this Congress gave us a 1-year reprieve in the emergency supplemental this spring. We need to reauthorize the county payments program for another 5 years, at a minimum, and we need to keep the Federal Government's commitment. If we're not going to do that, then we need to. And we probably need to do this anyway, frankly, get in with a new strategy on how to manage forests.

Now, I'm told in Canada where bugs have wiped out the lodgepole pine, the Canadian Government has come in and said actively get in there, take out the dead trees and let's get new forests going quickly. And they are rapidly clearing out the dead trees and starting new forests.

Our alternative here appears to be let it burn, let it rot, and 100 years from now we'll come back and take a look. I don't think that's the kind of stewardship Teddy Roosevelt had in mind when he talked about the great forest reserves and their use for water, for agriculture, and wood for home building. If you go back and read his speeches when he was creating these reserves; he wanted this long-term look at management of this wonderful resource we have.

Well, there are two things. One on the forest side. Let me take that first, and then I'll talk about county payments.

You're right. I always figured people sent us back here not because of our party label and we're only supposed to use that; they sent us back here to solve problems. And that's how I've tried to approach this, and that's why on the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, it was bipartisan when it passed this House, although the leadership in place today, from the Speaker all the way to the subcommittee chairman, opposed that bill, the bill that passed bipartisanly, unanimously in the Senate in its final form. They voted against it. But that's law and that's worked.

We need to pass a version similar to the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act so that we can go in and clean up after these fires and use the burned, dead trees while they still have value; create jobs in our community. Then we won't need these Federal payments after all if we better manage the forests. We need to increase the allowable cut in our forests so that we can generate jobs and so that we can harvest wood here legally for our uses rather than buy our wood products manufactured overseas from illegally logged forests that are being wiped out in places like Burma and Malaysia and Indonesia and Russia and China where they may have laws on the books and they're completely unenforced.

So, as a result, we all gleefully go to the local furniture store and buy this furniture that's made from wood that was illegally harvested, while our forests burned, and we don't even recover the burned, dead trees. So we need to deal with that issue.

And we need to take into account some terrific research out of the forest service about the change in temperature that's occurring and how the forests are going to move north, but it will take them 10,000 years to catch up with the temperature that should change in about 100 years, if all their data is correct, and I know some of that still needs to be worked out.

So, finally, on the issue of county payments, first I think the first day of this session my colleague Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon, and I, as we did the prior session, introduced legislation with you and others to reauthorize the county payments law. That partnership needs to be kept. That promise needs to be kept, regardless of who carries the gavels around here. And it's taken until just a week or so ago to get it out of the first committee. It still has an Ag Committee referral on it, and it's yet to come to this floor. We should be bringing that to the floor and voting it up and down

and moving it to the Senate or they should be sending us a bill. But right now, it appears to be, I don't know, held up, and that's not good for our children. It's not good for our libraries, not good for our first responders. It's not good for our county roads.

These school districts in some States have to send their layout notices out in March to tell teachers whether or not they're going to have the money for the following year. As you know, this year that happened in some school districts.

As the gentleman knows, the clock is running. Time is running out, not just on our Special Order tonight but on the school kids and the counties and the services that our citizens rely upon in these forested areas, because that funding stream we got that 1-year extension on is running out, as is the time in this Congress running out.

We'll be off 2 weeks after Thanksgiving, a week. We're going to be in for a day and a half or 2 days, couple of weeks in December. Then we're into January and maybe in 1 week there. You know, it's the way Congress works, but we're running out of time, and we shouldn't run out on the promise that this Congress should uphold to the school kids and the communities in America's rural counties.

Mr. Speaker, my greetings to my colleagues, especially my friend from Ohio and her remarks. I look forward tonight to talking about another civil right, and that is freedom of expression, guaranteeing that we have the ability to have freedom of expression of even controversial political and religious topics on America's airwaves. That's right, to make sure when issues are debated on talk radio or talk TV, that somehow there aren't government censors down the street at the FCC trying to silence those who are having these discussions about today's most vibrant issues.

It really goes to the heart of our democracy, I believe, to have an informed democracy which comes about because we have a vigorous discussion, intellectual discussion, a vibrant discussion about the issues of our day. Certainly, whether you are a conservative Member of the House or a liberal Member of the House or somewhere in between, we all debate these issues here; and some of what we say here actually ends up on the airwaves of our broadcast radio and television stations. That is a healthy thing for our country, for our democracy and for an informed electorate.

In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission promulgated a regulation that said every time you have a discussion about a controversial issue, you have to have an opposite viewpoint presented on the public airwaves. On its face, that certainly sounds fair, and that is why they called it the fairness doctrine and the whole premise was in 1949 that there weren't many radio stations. I think there were 2,800, and this was all designed to try and spur communication, to spur this debate on the airwaves, to have opposing viewpoints come forward. This was the government's viewpoint. This is what the Federal Government said this is how we will get this discussion going on the public airwaves. There aren't too many radio stations and very few television stations, no Internet, no iPods. That was it.

So they said, well, pass this regulation that will cause all this great discussion to occur. Well, guess what? That was 1949. Talk radio really didn't come about until about 1988 when, after a series of court decisions found that the so-called fairness doctrine really wasn't fair at all but, moreover, didn't spur the kind of debate on the public airwaves, and in fact, the courts have held, and I'll get into this in detail in a few minutes, but this Federal regulation actually had a very chilling effect on free speech, very chilling effect, actually discouraged discussion of public policy issues on the airwaves. That's right, discouraged discussion of public policy on the airwaves, had a chilling effect, chilling effect on free speech in America. And as a result, the Federal Communications Commission in 1987, I believe it was, decided to repeal the so-called fairness doctrine.

What happened after that? Well, what happened after that was all of the sudden talk radio came to life in America. Now you may like certain hosts and you may despise certain hosts. You may be a conservative Member of this House and think everything Rush Limbaugh says is gospel and the same thing with Sean Hannity. You may be a liberal Member of this House and like the words of Al Franken or Alan Colmes or someone.

None of those hosts would be at the level they are today if the fairness doctrine were still in place. So why am I down here talking about the fairness doctrine, a regulation that was repealed in 1987, 20 years ago? What's the issue?

Well, the issue is this, that there are Members of this body and the one across the Capitol, there are the powerful elite in this city who don't like what happens on talk radio, makes their lives uncomfortable, gives them great discomfort. The most recent example of which was when the Senate was debating the immigration legislation and moving quite rapidly forward on that flawed legislation, and talk radio got a hold of it on the conservative side or on the liberal side and began to go into it in detail with the audiences they reached, the millions and millions of average Americans out there who are listening to talk radio. The more they educated the public, the more they debated and engaged their audiences in this debate, the more pressure got turned up on this issue.

It's just one example. You know, the issue ended up being defeated in the Senate, and some of them who are on the other side said talk radio is to blame and we need to do something about talk radio, that's not fair, we need to bring back the fairness doctrine. That's why I'm here tonight and why the Republican leadership has asked me to speak on this issue, because there is a very real threat at very high levels in the government, the Congress, that is, to bring back the fairness doctrine, which would be one of the worst things I think could happen.

Now, why did they ask me? Well, I serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Telecommunications Subcommittee, but that's not why. They asked me because I grew up in a radio family. My father started in radio in the 1930s in rural Oregon, helped put stations on the air. He was an engineer and an announcer and a sportscaster and eventually, in 1967, was able to scrape together with a partner enough money to buy his first radio station and added another one he put on the air in 1978. And in 1986, my wife and I bought them from my parents and added three more. So I've been a small market broadcaster for 21\1/2\ years, and so I've seen this evolution of pre-fairness doctrine, post-fairness doctrine.

Indeed, one of our radio stations carries Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Michael Reagan and others on the conservative side, and there's great audience response. There are other radio stations, Portland and around, that have great audience response from Air America and the liberal viewpoints, and that's fine. That's what America's about is this debate of free speech.

I think that even liberals and conservatives should be able to agree that

having somebody down at the Federal Communications put in regulation the so-called chilling fairness doctrine would be the worst thing that could happen to a debate about public policy in America, the worst thing.

So recently, knowing that this was gurgling up in our Nation's capital, I wrote to the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and I'll put this letter in the official Congressional Record, but let me read you some excerpts, because I asked the thoughts of the chairman, Kevin Martin, about the appropriateness of the fairness doctrine, and he writes back:

``As you are undoubtedly aware, the fairness doctrine obliged broadcasters to provide an opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on those controversial issues of public importance that they covered,'' and he goes on to cite some court cases.

``In 1987, based on its 1985 Report on the fairness doctrine . . . and an extensive subsequent administrative record, the Commission concluded that enforcement of the fairness doctrine was not in the public interest and thus decided to abandon it.

``Among other things, the Commission found that the doctrine `chilled speech' by `providing broadcasters with a powerful incentive not to air controversial programming above a minimal amount' in order to avoid burdensome litigation over whether it had complied with its obligation to provide contrasting viewpoints . . . Based on its examination of the record, the Commission concluded the fairness doctrine had created `a climate of timidity and fear, which deterred the coverage of controversial issue programming.' . . . Indeed, the record'' compiled ``by the Commission at the time included over 60 reported instances in which the fairness doctrine had inhibited broadcasters' coverage of controversial issues.''

Sixty instances where the fairness doctrine had inhibited the coverage of controversial issues.

Now, you say why would that be? All they've got to get is somebody with an opposing viewpoint to come on. Well, what happens is if you air a controversial issue, which opposing viewpoint do you have to give access to the airwaves to? And there are a multiplicity of groups out there who demand that access, and if they didn't get it, they would threaten the very license of the broadcast station. They'd threaten them at the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission.

If you go back, there are examples in the 1960s of the Nixon White House and the Kennedy White House using the fairness doctrine to try to intimidate and silence their critics. Nixon, Kennedy, misusing the fairness doctrine. It's wrong. It's chilling. It was intimidating. These are the words of the current chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. I will put his letter back to me in the Record.

So, if the current chairman and the makeup of this commission doesn't believe in the fairness doctrine, why are we worried? Because the next administration will appoint new commissioners to the Federal Communications Commission, and that next administration could appoint commissioners who could write a rule to restore this government censorship into their rules.

Now you say, but you've said, Congressman Walden, that this is chilling and the courts have said this chills free speech. Yes, but they've never overturned it, and if it were put in rule, it would have a gagging effect on talk radio and talk television, including religious broadcasters by the way, immediately, I believe.

And so while it might take years to work its way through the court system, it was chilling effect on free speech in America, a guarantee of the first amendment of our Constitution. That effect would be immediate and devastating.

And so here on my left, well, here's Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken, Hannity and Colmes, duct tape over their mouth. That was a nice little Photoshop thing we did, but the point is clear. Restoration of this government regulation would silence them, but it's more than just them.

It's here starting on the far right over here. Lars Larson from KXL in Portland, has a national talk show as well. Garth and Rosemary Harrington out of KCMX in Medford, Oregon, or Bill Myers out of KMED, local in my district talk show hosts, in my State and national talk show hosts. People that we listen to, don't always agree with. You can always turn the dial and find a different topic on a different station. People we listen to. The threat's real.

So what are we doing about this threat? Well, Congressman Mike Pence, my colleague and former TV journalist from Indiana, and I have cosponsored H.R. 2905. That's the Broadcaster Freedom Act, and the Broadcaster Freedom Act, we tried to get hearings on, and the new majority doesn't want to give us a hearing on the bill. At least they haven't. It just says it takes an act of Congress, FCC, to restore the fairness doctrine. You can't just go do it on your own. You can't be five commissioners down the street who want to put the fairness doctrine back in rule and silence talk radio. No, you can't do it that way. In fact, we're not going to let you. Let's have the people's elected representatives be the ones to make that decision.

It doesn't sound so bad. It's a rule that's repealed today, not on the books. This commission says they have no interest in putting it in, or opponents of this effort even say, well, what are you worried about? My question is, if there's nothing to worry about, what are you worried about bringing this up for a vote? We ought to do it. Can't do it.

So the only alternative left to my colleague Mike Pence and I, both Republicans, but this doesn't have to be a partisan issue at all because I think all of us in this Chamber are for free speech and public debate, our only alternative left is something arcane known as a discharge petition. You all know that.

My colleagues know what a discharge petition is, but for those who may be new here and don't know, it's simply a petition you sign right over here at the front desk. And if a majority of the House, 218 Members, sign that petition, we'll get an open rule on the floor. We'll debate this issue in full and open and public display of our colleagues and citizens of this great country about freedom of speech.

And I predict we'd pass H.R. 2905 in a landslide, because the last time we voted on this issue was to deny funding to the Commission to reinstitute the fairness regulation and the censorship regulation, and more than 300 of the 435 Members of this great House voted with us, my colleague Mike Pence and with me, to prevent any funding being spent by the FCC.

So we know from that vote there are more than 300 of you here in the House who would support what we believe in, that you, too, support free speech over America's airwaves, that you support it.

So, it's simple. We just need 218 of 435 to sign the discharge petition. Just sign the petition. If you're for free speech over the public's airwaves, sign the petition. If you're for gagging people on the left, the right, the middle, religious broadcasters, then don't sign the petition. If you're for free speech, you sign the petition.

Now, I want to share with you some correspondence I've gotten back since we've started down this path and, the station vice president/ general manager of the CBS affiliate in Portland, Oregon, KINK and KLTH, wrote back to me, said:

``Greetings from Portland!

``Thank you for your efforts in opposing the re-introduction of the fairness doctrine. I appreciate getting copied on your inquiry to the FCC Chairman Kevin Martin regarding his views on the subject.

``The fairness doctrine is a classic example of an initiative that yields the opposite effect to its intended objective. A less-regulated forum for thoughts and ideas remains the best guardian for the well- being of our democracy.

``With warm regards,

``Stan Mak,''

``VP/GM, KINK & KLTH.''

A less-regulated forum for thoughts and ideas remains the best guardian for the well-being of our democracy.

Some other e-mails that we've gotten: Thank you for fighting to rid the U.S.A. of the fairness doctrine, which to me is nothing less than an attack on our freedom of speech. This insidious attack must be stopped. Please keep fighting, and don't let up until it's forever gone. Thank you. Mr. Graham Salisbury of Portland, Oregon.

Dear Congressman Walden, I was heartened to learn of your effort to force a vote on the BFA, possibly spurred by the current Limbaugh smear, because I find the fairness doctrine to be truly frightening. Mr. Dylan Greenhoe of Portland.

Mr. Robert Barrie of Grants Pass, Oregon, writes: I have just received your e-mail newsletter and I would like to tell you that you have my full backing on H.R. 2905. I must share your frustration that certain Members of Congress could be blatantly blind to the fact that the grassroot American public was able to see through the faulty Senate-proposed immigration bill, primarily due to the freedom of talk radio. If it had not been for American talk radio, most of us would not have had the slightest idea what was really in this legislation.

We must do everything in our power to see that the fairness doctrine is never brought back to American radio airwaves. Please keep me posted on this very important bill.

Mr. Robert Barrie, Grants Pass, Oregon.

Sign the petition. Sign the petition. Bring H.R. 2905 to the floor and keep America's airwaves open to debate on the right, the left, the religious center.

Can you imagine if you are a religious broadcaster and the regulators down the street put this gag back in place, and you are preaching a Christian message, let's say, do you have to bring on an atheist then to preach the opposite? Is that the kind of fairness some regulator here in Washington might demand in order for your station to get relicensed? I don't know. Clearly, though, in this day and this litigious society that we are living in, there are plenty of organized and certainly well-funded organizations out there who would love to silence their critics on either side.

This isn't about whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. This isn't about whether you are liberal in your viewpoints or conservative in your viewpoints. This cuts to the very foundation of free speech, which, obviously, underlies our entire country and our foundation for democracy. Without free speech, you do not have an informed democracy. Without that, you know, we don't have much of anything; we don't have much of anything.

So when you look at these issues, according to the FCC itself, the coverage of this old fairness doctrine was you had to have these issues covered, controversial issues covered to be fair. According to the FCC itself, this meant that each time a broadcaster presented an arguably controversial issue of public importance, they ran the risk of a complaint being filed, potentially resulting in litigation and penalties.

I want you, my colleagues, to tell me in today's environment how you would define arguably controversial issues of public importance. Is there anything that we debate here somebody might not say is arguably controversial?

The penalties that could emanate if this were put back in place included government sanction, administrative and legal expenses, or even revocation of broadcast licenses, clearly underscoring the need to pass H.R. 2905, the Broadcaster Freedom Act. There is one bill number or one term you need to leave here tonight remembering, it's pass H.R. 2905, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, unless you are for gagging those talk show hosts, like Bill Myers, who has spoken up aggressively about protecting American sovereignty, getting control of our borders, making sure that our taxpayer dollars are spent helping Americans, and those who are here legally, not the other way around, Garth and Rosemary Harrington, who are always talking about freedom in America and supporting our troops and standing up for our natural resource-based economy. Of course, Lars Larson who has been out there as well on all of these issues.

There are those in this Congress, and in this city, who seeks to put duct tape over their mouths, as we have done photographically here for display purposes only. That is what they want to do. They want to gag them. They want to shut them down because they don't like what they are saying, because they say things that aren't on the script.

Now I know, I don't always agree with all these folks. I mean, who does? Sometimes they engage in a little over-the-top discussion. I think, frankly, they are trying to get people to think. They are trying to jab them a little bit, get them outside of the box and look at issues differently.

If people didn't like what they heard, these people would be off the air because, especially in commercial broadcasting, it is all about ratings. Ratings are all about who is listening. Nobody is listening, nobody is buying advertising. They are packing up their microphones and their headphones, and they are headed out the back door. No, see, people are listening. They like to be challenged. You may not listen all the time, every day, every show. You may disagree, as I do, from time to time, with all these folks. But we should never disagree on the fact that we are better served with free speech in America.

You know, Congressman Pence and I last week, along with Congressman Boucher and a whole host of folks, Congressman Boucher and Congressman Pence really led the effort, passed legislation overwhelmingly in this House to protect journalists from government intervention and trying to figure out who their sources are.

Government always wants to kind of get in there and shut down people they don't want to hear from. They want to hide things sometimes when there are mistakes made. Nobody wants to be embarrassed; but without an active and vibrant press, and I was trained as a journalist at the University of Oregon, did a little bit of reporting in my background, without that, without sources that you can protect, we would not have the balance that we need in an informed democracy.

Let me talk a little bit about the Supreme Court cases related to the fairness doctrine. Again, remember, sign the petition, help us bring H.R. 2905 to the floor and prevent these things from happening.

But in 1969, we saw the first Supreme Court test of the fairness doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting v. The FCC. Although the court ruled then, remember, this was 1969, that the fairness doctrine didn't violate a broadcaster's first amendment rights, it did caution that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the constitutionality of the regulation should be reconsidered.

In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the fairness doctrine inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate. That was in the Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Torino lawsuit. Twenty-three years ago, 1984, the year Ronald Reagan was reelected, in FCC v. League of Women Voters, the Court went further and concluded that the fairness doctrine was limiting the breadth of debate. This ruling set the stage then in 1999 for the Federal Communications Commission to repeal the fairness doctrine.

So the Supreme Court of the United States, over many, many years, almost 15 years, the Supreme Court provided all of us in the Congress good enough reason in underpinnings to get rid of the fairness doctrine to make sure it never comes back. The commission got the message, 1987, said, we are going to repeal it.

But, you know, our memories sometimes in this body are a little short, and some people get a little tired of what they hear and the criticism they take, and, believe me, we all get it, but silencing our critics is fundamentally, and I will be careful how I use this word, but silencing our critics is un-American. Free speech is American. This is un-American to say we are going to gag people because we don't like what they say.

I don't think any of us here stand for that. I really don't. I honestly believe we want vigorous, open debate of issues, and we are better off for it. How many times do the Members of both sides of the aisle complain when legislation is rushed to the floor without a hearing, without the benefit of Members who bring various expertise, have them weigh in with amendments? We are seeing this rash, unprecedented rash of closed rules, no amendments, no hearings on major legislation because some powerful folks say we just want to get this done. We know what's right. We don't need your help. We don't want to listen to your critics; we don't want to listen to your complaints. We are just going to do it, and get over it.

Well, some of those same people may be the ones who say we don't like this talk radio thing; we don't like the fact they are bringing up different view points; we don't like the fact that Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Alan Colmes, Garth and Rosemary, Bill Myers or Lars Larson are talking about issues that, gosh, if people only knew the details of it would make our jobs uncomfortable. Well, tough, this is a democracy, and the voters decide whether they like what we do or not.

But if they are not informed, how do they know what we do here? How do they know? How do they know that we couldn't get a hearing on H.R. 2905? How do they know?

Well, I will tell you how they know, and how they know, how Americans know that this is an issue is because of talk radio, because we have told them. Some of us said, help us protect free speech on America's airwaves. Here we are today talking about a regulation overturned 20 years ago, one that we don't ever want to come back, one that the Bush administration doesn't want to come back, one that the FCC says we have no interest in bringing back. But we know there are those with a change of control, the administration, in just, you know, a couple of months, might put in place people who want to bring it back.

I am here tonight to say to my colleagues, and I know Dr. Burgess, who is going to speak after me, I believe, has already signed the discharge petition, as have nearly 140 of my colleagues, or perhaps more by the end of tonight, we just need 218, 218 people to sign the petition to prevent talk radio and talk TV and religious broadcasters from being gagged in what they do. We just need 218.

I am joined by my friend and colleague from Dallas, Texas, the Honorable Pete Sessions, who has signed the petition so that we can bring H.R. 2905 to the floor.

I know Congressman Sessions, who serves on the Rules Committee, has been very frustrated with the lack of free speech coming to this floor through legislation, because he is up there trying to fight for the rights of the minority to be able to have their views heard in this House and to be able to have their amendments debated in this House. I know he doesn't support silencing talk radio and talk TV as restoration of the fairness doctrine would do, but rather thinks like I do that we ought to pass H.R. 2905 and protect the first amendment rights of those on the public's airwaves.

Perhaps my colleague from Texas would like to make a comment.

I think there may be some newer Members here who don't understand the significance of what a closed rule means. What that means is no Member of the House has an opportunity to have an amendment heard on that issue, right?

I am a little troubled by that because I thought that the Speaker of the House, when she took over, announced that the House would be run differently and that there wouldn't be closed rules.

Which means shutting down debate, shutting down amendments, limiting all of us.

I appreciate the gentleman coming, speaking this evening on the floor of the House. The gentleman from Texas has done fine work in the Rules Committee and stood up in a valiant fight. But you're outnumbered there two to one by the Democrats, correct?

It's pretty hard to get bipartisanship there if it's always a 9-4 vote, isn't it?

And has the gentleman seen lots of open rules on major policy issues?

Does the gentleman believe that that brings disrespect on this House for----

So even the chairman of the committee said bring forth whatever amendments to the floor you want on the bill I have, and his chairman of the Rules Committee makes the decision what amendments come forward said uh-uh.

And that's one of the those closed rules.

And you said that's still up on the Speaker's Web site?

Do what you said.

But wait. Haven't those passed in a big bipartisan majority? So when one of these ideas comes to the floor, what you're saying is, the Republicans and Democrats actually do what Americans elected us to do, which was come together on issues, right?

Try and make it better, right?

To look for terrorists on a terrorist watch list.

Sounds to me like we were most interested in trying to protect the security of Amtrak passengers.

And do the blaming.

Well, it really isn't off the subject because what we're talking about is freedom to speak. We're talking about free expression. We're talking about a fundamental right under the Constitution of the ability of Americans to have their elected officials debate issues as we're doing tonight, or to have those in the fourth estate, the press, be able to inform the electorate, inform Americans about the issues of the day and debate them vigorously. This is about a fundamental right in America, about free speech.

Now, I want to share with you, because some people may be saying, well, where is this coming from, this fairness doctrine thing? Who's saying you're going to put that up? Well, a candidate for President, Democrat side, Representative Kucinich, Ohio, in January, according to a publication, said that he announced that he was going to pursue the fairness doctrine through his Government Reform Subcommittee. That announcement was greeted with silence, but now Speaker Pelosi has moved things to the front burner.

Now let me get to a quote here in the American Spectator, a newspaper I guess, May 14. According to two members of the House Democrat Caucus, Reps Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have informed them they will ``aggressively pursue reinstatement of the so-called fairness doctrine over the next six months.'' That was back in May. And then there's a quote in something called the Liberty Papers, May 15, ``First, Democrats failed on the radio airwaves with America. No one wanted to listen,'' says the senior advisor to Pelosi. ``Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans, and we have to find a way to limit it.'' This is an advisor quoted in Liberty Papers about that.

Our colleague from New York, Maurice Hinchey, NPR National Public Radio, June 22, Representative Maurice Hinchey tells the Washington Times that the Democrat is planning to reintroduce a bill that calls for a return to the doctrine saying the American people should have a wide array of news sources available to them. Well, this isn't about news sources. This is about political and free speech on the airwaves. Senator Feinstein, California, says she's looking at reviving the fairness doctrine. That was in June in The Hill. Senator Durbin says it's time to reinstitute the fairness doctrine. He's the majority whip in the U.S. Senate. I have this old-fashioned attitude when Americans hear both sides of the story they're in a better position to make a decision. Well, yeah, that's true. But we're in a lot better position when you don't have government bureaucrats deciding whether or not you've aired all the positions.

And as you said, it's one thing to say you and I may disagree; so you get to come on and I come on. But what about our colleague from Texas, Dr. Burgess? He may have a little different opinion from yours and he still may disagree with me and there may be three or four other Members. As the broadcaster, you have got 30 minutes or an hour on your show. How many opposing viewpoints do you have to have on in order to satisfy the government regulators that you've the right opposing viewpoint? We don't need government nannies, hall monitors trying to figure out if we are having debate and discussion on the airwaves.

I would be happy to yield.

The last time I checked, we were at about 140. We only need 218. It has only been out there for a few days.

Reclaiming my time, more than 300 of our colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, said no to the funding of the reinstitution of the fairness doctrine.

The only thing that has happened in between is nothing has happened in between, including that provision is stuck in an appropriations bill that has never gone to the President. So there is no protection today; but in terms of the issue itself, nothing has changed. That's why we should bring this to an up-or-down vote on the floor. That is all we are asking is Members of the Congress of the House just sign the discharge petition. Just go right over there tomorrow and sign the discharge petition. That's all it is. If you get 218 of 435 on this bill, under an open rule, by the way, it will come to the House floor and we will have a full and vigorous debate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for weighing in because it's part of why I am down here tonight to talk about the importance of this because, again, I think underlying everything we do in the country is our ability to have free speech.

This isn't Russia. This isn't China. This isn't name your country with leaders that crack down when they don't like what somebody says out there. Look at the oppression of the free press and debate in some of those countries. The silencing of government critics, the fairness doctrine is just an inch toward that. You just keep moving toward that, and you get the government deciding whether you get to keep your broadcast license or not. I mean, this stuff is real. Leaders, frankly, those in the majority now on the Democrat side have said we think we ought to put this back in place. The majority whip of the Senate said that. The staff to the Speaker indicated that. A Presidential candidate on the Democrat side has indicated that this needs to be done. And I just think you don't go down that path.

Now, this, again, is not a conservative or liberal fight. Free speech should never be a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. Protecting free speech should never be a Republican or Democrat issue. That's why signing the petition to bring this protection to the floor should not be a Republican or Democrat issue. We should be doing this in a bipartisan way, and 300 Members of this House voted for it already in effect. So I don't know what the hang-up would be. Perhaps they are not aware the petition is available. Perhaps if Members don't happen to be down here tonight and there is not a full House tonight but they may be watching, maybe others are, we can encourage them to sign the petition tomorrow.

I want to tell you too in this context that it is liberal viewpoints and conservative that believe that we should pass H.R. 2905 and are opposed to the fairness doctrine. In a 2003 interview on Public Broadcasting's ``NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,'' well-known liberal talk show host Alan Colmes said: ``Modern-day talk radio would not thrive if there

were a fairness doctrine and the bureaucratic nightmare that's involved in the kind of paperwork you need to do that. The free market should be the arbiter of what flies on talk radio . . . that's where I want to make it, and not because I have government help to do so.'' Alan Colmes, not necessarily a conservative on talk radio and TV. A liberal, and that's fine.

In 2007, on his own program, ``Hannity and Colmes,'' Mr. Colmes wholeheartedly agreed with a guest's comment that radio hosts simply chose not to talk about controversial issues on the air when the fairness doctrine was in place.

As managing editor and anchor of CBS News, a man well known across America, Dan Rather, said: ``I can recall newsroom conversations about what the FCC implications of broadcasting a particular report would be. Once a newsperson has to stop and consider what a government agency will think of something he or she wants to put on the air, an invaluable element of freedom has been lost.'' Dan Rather.

Former FCC Chairman Dennis Patrick, who served on the commission between 1987 and 1989, his remarks on the fairness doctrine appeared in the Wall Street Journal's opinion page this summer, and he said: ``Reimposing `fairness regulation' would be a colossal mistake. The world without the fairness doctrine features exponentially more discussion of public issues from contrasting perspectives. The robust diversity of the blogosphere and the ideological rivalry among competing cable news channels all speak to the advantage of permitting the marketplace of ideas to make its own editorials FCC-free.''

These are reasons, colleagues, that you should go over here tomorrow morning when the House reconvenes and sign the discharge petition. It's a real simple thing to do. You sign twice. You initial once, sign once. When 218 Members sign that under an open rule, we will bring to the House floor for an up-or-down vote this bill, H.R. 2905, which would prevent the government regulators on their own, without an act of Congress, from reinstituting censorship of the public's airwaves. This bill will stop that. And my friend Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana, and I both, who have spent time in the broadcast industry, encourage you to do this.

Again, more than 300 Members of the U.S. House voted to prohibit the FCC from using funds to reinstate the fairness doctrine; and 113 of the 309 that stood up for freedom during a vote on the Pence amendment were Democrats. So we know that there are 113 Members on this side of the aisle who have already voted against reinstituting the fairness doctrine, in fact, voted to make sure no money was spent by the agency to reinstitute the fairness doctrine. So just one of you, 2, 3, 4, 5, 20, we will take 20 Members, sign it, and this will come to the floor.

Only one Democrat has cosponsored this bill. Every single Republican is a cosponsor of this legislation. One Democrat has, and we appreciate that and we welcome more Members from the Democrat side, the party that often speaks on this floor about protecting civil rights and speech. Help us protect free speech over the public's airwaves by both cosponsoring H.R. 2905 and by signing the discharge petition. A petition, that's all it is, just the petition to bring it to the floor. Even if you don't happen to support the bill, H.R. 2905, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, sign the discharge petition. We are bringing this issue up under an open rule. You can offer up an alternative. You can offer up several alternatives. That's what America should be about is the ability to offer up alternatives on this floor among Members of Congress who are elected by the people to get the people's work done. Not to take away their rights, not to take away their free speech rights, not to be the nanny that tunes their radio for them, but rather to protect these fundamental constitutional rights that men and women who have worn our Nation's uniform have shed blood and died to protect and preserve so that we, this generation, would have the ability to continue to debate issues. And as annoying as that can be to some, depending upon your viewpoint on the issue, it should never be annoying that we protect this right. This is a fundamental right of America and Americans to be able to debate, discuss, without government interference, the political issues of the day.

And by their nature, if they are interesting, they are probably controversial. And if they are controversial, they probably do need to be debated, and out of that debate we will have a better outcome. We will all learn from listening to the opposing viewpoints. But we won't hear any of it if the fairness doctrine is back in place because we saw what happened between 1949 and 1987. There was no talk radio to speak of, certainly not vigorous talk radio.

And I am not saying you have to agree with Alan Colmes. I'm not saying you have to agree with Lars Larson or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. In fact, you can pick what you want. But do you really want to leave in place the opportunity for Federal regulators, without a vote of this Chamber, to put back in place a flawed regulation that we know chills free speech, that reduces speech on political issues at all? Do you want to leave that opening there for the next administration to have three commissioners of the five make that decision for you, three unelected commissioners? And I respect them all, believe me, but that is not how government should work on an issue as critical as free speech and protecting free speech rights.

So I encourage you tonight to think about it. Think about it. Think about those who have come before us, about those who have worn America's uniform to protect our free speech rights, and ask yourself how hard is it to walk right over here and sign the petition to allow an up-or-down vote on protecting free speech rights on America's radio and television broadcast stations?

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address our colleagues in the United States House of Representatives. I encourage them once again to sign the petition, bring H.R. 2905 to the floor, the Broadcaster Freedom Act. Protect the free speech rights of even those talk show hosts you vehemently disagree with because silencing those hosts is the worst thing the government could do.

The material I previously referred to follows:

Federal Communications Commission, Office of the

Chairman,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Greg Walden,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Walden: Thank you for your letter asking

for my thoughts on the present-day appropriateness of the

Fairness Doctrine. As you are undoubtedly aware, the Fairness

Doctrine obliged broadcasters to provide an opportunity for

the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on those

controversial issues of public importance that they covered.

See In re Complaint of Syracuse Peace Council, 2 FCC Rcd 5043

(1987).

In 1987, based on its 1985 Report on the Fairness Doctrine,

Inquiry into Section 73.1910 of the Commission's Rules and

Regulations Concerning Alternatives to the General Fairness

Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 102 FCC 2d 145

(1985), and an extensive subsequent administrative record,

the Commission concluded that enforcement of the Fairness

Doctrine was not in the public interest and thus decided to

abandon it.

Among other things, the Commission found that the doctrine

```chill[ed]' speech'' by ``provid[ing] broadcasters with a

powerful incentive not to air controversial programming above

[a] minimal amount'' in order to avoid burdensome litigation

over whether it had complied with its obligation to provide

contrasting viewpoints. 2 FCC Rcd at 5049 para.para. 42, 43.

Based on its examination of the record, the Commission

concluded that the Fairness Doctrine had created ``a climate

of timidity and fear, which deter[red] the coverage of

controversial issue programming.'' Id. at para. 47. Indeed,

the record compiled by the Commission at the time included

over 60 reported instances in which the Fairness Doctrine had

inhibited broadcasters' coverage of controversial issues. Id.

at para. 43.

Furthermore, the Commission determined that the doctrine

``inherently provide[d] incentives that are more favorable to

the expression of orthodox and well-established opinion with

respect to controversial issues than to less established

viewpoints.'' Id. at para. 45. Because broadcasters espousing

provocative opinions were more likely to be subject to a

Fairness Doctrine challenge, the Commission concluded that

the doctrine, in operation, inhibited the goal of ensuring

that the public had access to innovative and less popular

viewpoints. Indeed, the Commission expressed concern that the

doctrine ``provide[d] a dangerous vehicle--which has been

exercised in the past--for the intimidation of broadcasters

who criticize government policy.'' Id. at para. 54. Finally,

the Commission concluded that government regulation was not

necessary to ensure that the public had access to a wide

range of opinion

on controversial issues of the day in light of the

multiplicity of information sources available to the

public, such as television stations, radio stations, daily

newspapers, and cable television services. See id. at

para.para. 55-56.

In reviewing the Commission's decision to abandon the

Fairness Doctrine, the United States Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit determined that the Commission's

findings were supported by the record, and upheld the

Commission's determination that the fairness doctrine no

longer served the public interest. See Syracuse Peace Council

v. FCC, 867 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S.

1019 (1990).

In my judgment, the events of the last two decades have

confirmed the wisdom of the Commission's decision to abolish

the Fairness Doctrine. Discussion of controversial issues

over the airwaves has flourished absent regulatory

constraints, and the public now enjoys access to an ever-

expanding range of views and opinions. Indeed, with the

continued proliferation of additional sources of information

and programming, including satellite broadcasting and the

Internet, the need for the Fairness Doctrine has lessened

ever further since 1987. In short, I see no compelling reason

to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in today's broadcast

environment, and believe that such a step would inhibit the

robust discussion of issues of public concern over the

nation's airwaves.

I appreciate your interest in this important matter. Please

do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide further

information.

Sincerely,

Kevin J. Martin,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to say that I support expansion of the children's health care program, but not in its current form, and here's why. Half of the 1.2 million new enrollees in the expansion of SCHIP under this proposal already have insurance, already have insurance, and that's according to the Congressional Budget Office. When it comes to adults, they cost 60 percent more to care for than kids. This program should be about helping expand coverage to children whose families do not have access to health insurance.

I spent 21 years in small business. I'd never sign a contract that I knew I couldn't keep my word on. This bill is unfunded after year five. In year six, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this program is short about 80 percent.

Beyond that, if we took the million and a half adults off of this program and put them on Medicaid, which they're eligible to do, then that would free up funds that could go to help kids. In fact, I think it's about 780,000 adults in 2012 would still be on this program. That would fund 1,150,000 children who could be put on Medicaid.

Mr. Speaker, I join the Congressman from Indiana, my friend from Indiana, Mike Pence, in asking our colleagues to sign the discharge petition today to bring the Broadcast Freedom Act to the floor. The Broadcast Freedom Act builds on an initiative that was passed yesterday overwhelmingly by this House to protect the rights of reporters and their sources from government interference so that we can have a vibrant fourth estate, a vibrant press, and free and informed democracy.

Mr. Speaker, the Broadcast Freedom Act would prevent bureaucrats and government agencies from censoring and micromanaging what is said on the public's airwaves. It's all under the guise of restoring the Fairness Doctrine, or so-called, which had an incredible, incredible free speech problem that even the courts recognized. Yet, there are some who don't like what they hear on broadcast and TV talk shows, and the powerful elite in this city would like to restore the Fairness Doctrine. We cannot let that happen, not on religious broadcasters, not on liberal broadcasters, not on conservative broadcasters. Sign the discharge petition. Bring the Freedom Act up for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, as a graduate of the School of Journalism at the University of Oregon and as the owner of radio stations with award-winning journalists, I am a firm believer in the need for journalists to be able to protect their confidential sources so they can have a vibrant and free press in America.

This bill is about much more than simply shielding reporters. It is about protecting the public's right to know. Jailing reporters to force them to divulge their sources has a chilling affect on whistleblowers and investigative reporters.

Thomas Jefferson said: ``Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press nor that be limited without danger of losing it.'' A vote for the Free Flow of Information Act is a vote to protect citizens and taxpayers from an ominous and oppressive government that seeks to silence its critics. And in America, such government power would threaten our freedom and our informed democracy.

Representative Sessions, I appreciate your comments tonight about the differences between our parties, Republicans versus Democrats; but moreover, the vision for this country. Because I think at the end of the day Americans want us to come together with a vision that will produce jobs, that will let Americans keep more of what they earn, that will do something to protect our various resources and allow us to be competitive internationally.

I heard your comments about our competitiveness versus the European Union, and I am no economist, but I did spend a little time over there this spring. And, you know, they're headed down this path of higher taxes in some countries, and other countries have figured out they can't compete with higher taxes and they can't compete with very short work weeks, and they're actually trying to reform to be more like the United States.

I would be happy to yield.

I appreciate that. America is a great country with a great future if we don't allow it to get messed up in these Halls. We have a great opportunity ahead of us, I believe. I certainly think when you see what is happening in some European capitals, some are good things and then there are some questionable things. In some of these areas they realized their tax rates are much too high. All you have to do is go back and look at Ireland that went ahead after many decades of stagnant economy and then did a major tax reform or reduction and all of a sudden its economy is blossoming. They are creating jobs. They are attracting companies to locate in Ireland.

I guess that is what troubles me a bit about what I see happening here in the new Democrat majority is they are looking at how do we raise taxes, which I don't think is the way to go. I think hardworking Americans deserve to keep more of what they earn. Certainly that has been my philosophy and how I have voted here. I think that the outcome is clear. If you look at when President Kennedy cut the capital gains tax rate, revenues went up to the Federal Government. Bill Clinton understood it. He cut capital gains rate. Revenues went up to the Federal Government. Republicans cut the capital gains rate. Revenues went up to the Federal Government. The new majority, the Democrats say, We may just let that expire. We may raise it. We may raise all these taxes. I think the effect will be very harsh on our economy and revenues to the Federal Government will probably go down.

110,000 new jobs.

I am glad you made the point about the declining deficits and the increasing revenues to the Federal Government. This Federal Government has never been richer. It has never had more of our tax dollars than it has today. The issue here is how do you control spending. I think that Wall Street Journal editorial and column went on to say today that, Look out, because there are all these new spending programs being put on the desk.

I met with a group this weekend in my district and I said, You know, if you smoke, if you drink, if you are born, if you die, if you have capital gains, dividend income, if you just work, look out because the taxes on you are most likely going to go up. That is what we see here, as you know, on the farm bill that recently was approved by this House. I reluctantly at the end voted against it because it abrogates 55 international tax treaties we have on how our companies and other international companies are dealt with. Those are treaties we have. And this House, no notice to anyone here, I think we learned the night before the vote, suddenly wanted to raise taxes $78 billion and abrogate all these international treaties America has entered into. Not renegotiate them. Just blow them apart.

And I don't think that is the way to go. We hear more about this every day. It is pick on this group or that group or the next group, set one American against another American and try to leverage one group and wedge one group and engage in all this political posturing to grow government.

A huge role.

As the gentleman well knows, the trade bills that are pending open their markets to our goods, because our markets are all already open to their goods. This is about American manufacturers, American agriculture being able to sell what we make or raise here into other markets in a fair way.

I met with a wheat marketing group on Friday morning in my district in the town of Moro, Sherman County. And wheat there, they had just sold a barge full of U.S. soft white wheat from the Northwest for $11 a bushel. I stutter because it is a record amount, $11 a bushel. Why? Well, there are droughts in Australia and elsewhere, enormous demand for this product on the world market. Where they have suffered year after year when there have been gluts on the market, in this year, world economy, effects of agriculture around the globe, international trade policy being open, they are going to get up to $11 for their wheat. Now the market has come down a little bit, $300 for barley right now. These are tremendous prices that will help American farmers because it needs to be sold to countries overseas that are consuming it in enormous amounts.

So we benefit from trade if these agreements are fair, if they are negotiated properly, and if they are enforced correctly. Now, let me give you an example in my part of the world that is really troubling and that this Congress needs to do something about, and that is the issue of illegal logging. It ties into the whole issue of the environment and how I think Republicans want to take care of the environment that we have especially in our forests. There is an enormous amount of illegal logging going on overseas to satisfy the wood demand that we have right here in the United States and elsewhere. But we are the big importers in many cases.

According to the G-8 illegal logging dialogue which happened in Berlin in June of this year, 40 percent of illegally cut timber is attributable to imports to the G-8 countries, and United States is responsible for a quarter of those imports. Now, what is going on around the world I don't think most Americans are aware of. I wasn't. The Washington Post did a terrific story on it. I have now read other studies. Brazil, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Russia appeared to supply, but not necessarily from all their own forests, a great majority of this illegal timber. There may be logs on the books that say, Don't cut here. But that doesn't stop rogue provinces and illegal operators from doing that. Why does that matter? Because here in the United States, this Congress and this government has clamped down on our domestic production of timber off our forested lands, especially in the West, 80 percent reduction since 1990. Meanwhile, wild fires ravage America's forests.

I tell you, Congressman Sessions, if Theodore Roosevelt were alive today, he created these forest reserves in 1905, he would be rolling over in his grave to watch how mismanaged they are. We had over 8 million acres go up in fire this year, nearly a record. We are on track for a record each of these last few years. It costs the taxpayers of America $1.2 billion so far and we are not done with the fire season, so far to extinguish these blazes.

It absolutely is one of those issues. When Republicans were in control of this assembly, and I am sorry to sound partisan on this, but it is just the way it is in the clash of philosophies on this particular issue, while we had some bipartisan help, I chaired the Forestry Subcommittee in the House Resources Committee. We held hearing after hearing after hearing on these issues. We marked up and passed legislation, some of which made it all the way into law, some of which was bipartisan and passed this assembly.

But unfortunately, today, the Speaker of the House, the majority leader of the House, the Democratic caucus chair, the Natural Resources Committee chair and the Rules Committee chairwoman all voted against, for example, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which did become law, which allowed some thinning of our forest, not as much as I would like to see but helped streamline it. The whole leadership of this Democrat Congress voted against that in the House. So it makes it almost impossible to go to the next step to help stop these wild fires from ravaging our forests, to get to commonsense management of our timber.

I want to show an example here of a fire that occurred in my district. This

is the example of the Eggley fire. The Eggley fire burned about 140,000 acres of America's grasslands and forest lands out in Harney County, 140,000 acres. Do you see the devastation? These two children are the grandchildren of the county judge there, a Democrat, Steve Grasty, and they are standing there as a stark example of the future that they are now inheriting. Some of this area burned before. Some of this area has been basically made off limits. We think you ought to go in there and remove the burned dead trees while they still have value and restart a new forest sooner. We had legislation that passed the Republican House last year, it was bipartisan, that would have gotten that going. Unfortunately, the Senate never picked it up.

I will tell you what is worse. We have a lot of cattle ranchers out there who have permits to graze on some of this ground. Because of the intensity of this fire, it may be one year or two before the grasses come back and they will be allowed to graze. They are having now today, literally today, with the price of hay being what it is and the demand, they are having to liquidate their herds. Some of them may go completely out of business all because these lands aren't being properly managed.

Now, for our friends who are concerned about global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, I serve on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Climate Change. A fire that burns as intensely or more so than this one probably emits 100 tons of greenhouse gas emission for every acre, 100 tons per acre. This burned 140,000 acres. A good, green, healthy-growing forest like a lot of them we have in the Northwest will sequester between 4 and 6 tons of carbon per acre. So wouldn't you think that this Congress would be focusing on doing better management on our forests? And yet the subcommittee that I used to chair has now been compressed in with the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee into one, has held one hearing in 9\1/2\ months on this issue. They have marked up no legislation dealing with this issue. Nothing is happening of consequence, except taxpayers are spending $1.2 billion to fight these blazes. The future these kids are looking at is a long way off. I like my forests green and healthy, not black. But some of the groups out there who appeal even thinning in these areas issued a statement recently that said burned forests are healthy forests.

Now, I suppose in the enormous scope of time, they grow back. We know that. But I don't think burned forests are the policy that Americans want us to have when it comes to their forests. It doesn't work well for habitat, for water quality and watersheds.

Meanwhile, I'll bet we don't cut a stick of this, or very little of it. Instead, because this will get litigated because we won't change the law here which is what needs to happen, even though you and I would do it and you have been helpful in these efforts, instead we will proudly go to the local store and get our furniture made in China from illegally harvested wood from countries that have no environmental laws where the forests are extraordinarily important around the equator to sequester carbon.

I don't understand the ineffective, wasteful vision of the other side, when I believe no land manager in America would allow this to occur and wouldn't go in right afterward. Counties don't do it. Private foresters don't allow this to occur. They get in right away. I have been out on sites, and they get in right away, clean it up. Our State of Oregon has a very progressive Forest Practices Act. But they don't wait. They don't wait a year. It will be a year before they are done writing their plan, and then it will be subject to appeal and litigation, most likely for another year.

The other thing we learned as Scouts, and, like you say, we are both Eagle Scouts, what has always stuck with me when it comes to how we manage our resources was a very simple line: ``Leave your campsite better than you found it.'' That, I think, is a great guiding principle for those of us in this body, not only for natural resource policy, but for this country, to leave it better than you found it.

Mr. Speaker, let me just suggest that we burned more than 8 million acres this year, and 5.7 million acres, which is our new average that we are burning every year in this country, is an area larger than the entire State of New Jersey. We throw these big numbers around in Washington, the bureaucrats do it all the time, and we do it from time to time. Think about every year you're burning an area of your national forest and grasslands and other areas larger than the size of the State of New Jersey.

Let me tell you what just happened in my district of eastern Oregon. I have 70,000 square miles of terrific eastern Oregon. Three of the last mills have been put either on indefinite closure or closure in very remote areas where they are surrounded by overstocked forests that need all this work, and they are some of the last, if not the last mills in these communities, and 198 people in those three communities have lost their jobs. That is 2.6 percent of nonfarm payroll.

Now the State's economists, the certified smart economic folks, said, I wonder what that impact of those 198 jobs would be if it was spread over 2.6 percent of nonfarm payroll over the Portland metropolitan area. So a standard city in America, what do you think that would be? It would be the loss of 26,400 jobs.

So all across the rural West in small communities where the mills close, there's barely a yawn or a whimper in this Congress about what is happening, and yet the prior forest service chiefs and the current one will tell you our country and our forests and our ability to manage those forests cannot be sustained if we lose the infrastructure to do the management.

That is precisely what is happening today, for a lot of reasons, some of it market conditions, but part of the market conditions is an 80 percent reduction in the timber harvest on Federal land, an inability to go in and even clean up after a fire in less than 2 years on Federal land.

I was just out on the GW fire, not named for me, even though it's my initials, GW fire outside of Black Butte Ranch, Sisters, Oregon. It burned, I think, 7,000 acres, something like that, or 8,000. Where the forest service had done thinning, the fire dropped to the ground and they put it out. That is part of what we were trying to accomplish with our Healthy Forest Restoration Act that President Bush signed into law, that we as Republicans wrote, with bipartisan help.

The thinning project, where it dropped to the ground, the trees are all green around it, was held up by environmentalists for let's say 5 years in

litigation, 2001 until, I think, 2006, and finally the forest service prevailed and they worked the sale. They thinned out this overstock stand, and a fire hit it and it went out, and the trees are still green.

Mr. Speaker, I think that what Americans want is for us to manage, to be good stewards of this land and this resource. To do what is happening today without reform is ineffective, it's wasteful, it's intrusive. Today, 45 percent of the forest service budget goes to fighting fire. It used to be 15. That is 45 percent goes to fighting fire. A nearly like amount goes to paperwork to process the various activities they do, rather than on the ground, doing what they are trained to do. We tie them up in court, in litigation, in all this process and all this stuff.

We have got to fix this problem, and if we do, when we passed the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act in the House last year by a big bipartisan margin, it would have generated, I think, $140 million over 10 years to the Federal Treasury in net new revenues. It would have helped pay for cleanup and restoration effort.

We can do these things, but this leadership today, they voted against it, from the Speaker on down. They put people in charge of the committees who were opposed to us every step of the way.

So I would tell my colleague from Texas, elections have consequences, and the changes are being played out today as more and more firefighters are called upon to put out these blazes, as cattle ranchers in eastern Oregon and around the West are driven off their allotments, having to liquidate their herds or trying to get disaster help in, when it doesn't have to be that way. It doesn't have to be that way.

We can work smarter, we can fix these problems, and in so doing, we can improve the environment. Do you think this is great habitat for anything other than bugs and woodpeckers, which need habitat; I'm not downplaying that. We have seen case after case. In Colorado, the Hayman fire. After that enormous fire, the Denver watershed was deluged with mud and dead animal debris and dead fish as the runoff occurred. We are always going to have fire. We need to be smart on how we manage our forests so we can manage our fires. Get it back in balance with nature.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress has held one hearing, taken no legislative action, zero, zip, zilch, let it burn, don't fix it afterwards, and we will just get our imported wood from illegal logging and furniture from China. It doesn't make sense. It needs to change.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make one other comment. You're going to see a lot of discussion in this Congress about what to do about global warming. I serve on both the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Energy and Air Quality Committee and the Select Committee on Global Climate Change, and I want to do what is right for the environment. But there are going to be competing viewpoints. The two philosophies are going to collide here.

There are some on the Democrat leadership side who think a carbon tax is where America should go, a .50 cent a gallon increase in taxes on your gasoline. That is their vision. It's $50 a ton carbon emissions from power plants, higher taxes, higher fees on ratepayers in America or drivers in America. I don't think it has to be that way, by the way. I think there are ways we can invest in research and development and get new technologies and incent Americans to do the right thing, not punish them with higher taxes, because Europe is kind of going that direction. They are looking at a cap and trade model in Germany. They rolled it out 5 years and the price of electricity in Germany went up 25 percent. They miscalculated. Guess who got the bill? The ratepayers did. Now they are going to try and change that. They think they have got a little different thing worked out.

But I would rather invest in research, development in new technologies for new fuels. I was out at the dedication of an ethanol plant in my district. If we can ever get to cellulosic, we can use woody biomass and we can use things like algae to scrub carbon out and to produce fuel. It is amazing what lurks out there on the horizon. But we don't have to punish ratepayers, I don't think, at least. And yet, you watch, that is what is coming.

Think back to Jimmy Carter in the seventies. He put on his sweater, sat by the fireplace in the White House. The sweater thing may be there, but you aren't going to get to have a fire. You're just going to shiver in the cold because you won't be able to afford your electricity or your power because they are going to drive up the costs so high that people are going to say ``I can't afford it.'' And then they will race back here to get more money from the government to help bring down the cost of heating.

Mr. Speaker, it doesn't have to be that way. We ought to have incentives, not punishment. There are ways to get this done. There is a great story in the Wall Street Journal today about big national companies that are beginning to ask about carbon footprint of their suppliers, and Americans are beginning to say maybe you ought to put a fluorescent light bulb in. If you put it in five of your most used lights, you can save an enormous amount of energy. It's a good thing for your bottom line, and it reduces carbon. Keep your air up in your tires, you reduce carbon emissions and you increase your gas mileage.

These are things Americans will do because we want a good, healthy environment. But do you want to have a 20 percent increase in your electricity bill this winter? Do you want 50 cents more on top of a gallon of gas? And who gets the money? The Federal Government. You could have a trillion dollars that way in a heartbeat and it will all be hidden; it will be phased in, come out of your power bills, you will never know it happened. And the big spenders around here are just licking their chops.

I don't think it has to be that way. I think we can have smaller, smarter commonsense government that uses market principles and incent the people to do the right thing, not ineffective, wasteful and intrusive government that just costs taxpayers more and more and more.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with you the storied tradition and history that led to the establishment of Roberts Field-Redmond Municipal Airport in Redmond, Oregon. The same strong community support that led to the construction and completion of the airfield still exists today as the City of Redmond embarks on a terminal construction project to further expand air services in the beautiful region of central Oregon.

The origins of the airport date back to the 1920s, when local farmers and merchants made a monthly chore of collecting and clearing debris from the roads. In the neighboring towns of Alfalfa and Powell Butte, farmers did the same until the men met in the middle and the roads could once again facilitate trade.

Madam Speaker, in 1928 discussions of creating an air strip grew serious. Members of the Ray Johnson Post of the American Legion in Redmond formed an aviation committee and work on an air strip began. The September 6, 1928 Redmond Spokesman reported:

``A fine, level spot two miles east of town on the Ochoco Highway will be cleared immediately of trees and sagebrush . . . the post had funds to begin an aviation program that will ultimately develop into an up-to-date place for airplanes to land and take off.''

In 1933, the Department of the Interior decided to lease approximately 640 acres southeast of Redmond to the Ray Johnson Post, giving them the exclusive rights to develop an airfield there. The Post leased the land for $10 a year for 20 years. By 1936 the landing was listed as an airfield on most federal maps. The Works Progress Administration (WPA) provided critical funding toward rock removal to ensure that Roberts Field was safe for take off and landing procedures. At the beginning of 1941, the WPA was approached by the War Administration with an inquiry on the cost of building a Class III airport in Redmond. J.R. Roberts, a local resident and community leader, noted at the time that a Class III airport would provide substantial improvements to the airport and grant the construction of lights, paved runways, hangers, buildings and shops. That message was relayed to the WPA and consequently the War Administration and the powers in Washington, DC.

Madam Speaker and fellow colleagues, I can only imagine the surprise and the excitement of many residents in Redmond when they awoke one morning in February of 1941 to read the following in the Redmond Spokesman:

``Roosevelt Slaps OK on Airport and reported $717,000 in WPA funds approved.''

In June of 1941 the airport was named after J.R. Roberts as a tribute to all of his work and leadership that led to the establishment of the airport. Meanwhile, improvements to the airport continued. In October of the same year, $318,000 of defense funding was allocated for the construction of two runways at Roberts Field. In 1942, the city leased the airport back to the government and allowed for the construction of a bomber base. When World War II ended, commercial air service was established at Roberts Field as J.R. Roberts worked diligently to negotiate the return of the airport to city control.

Madam Speaker, the town's population remained relatively static from the 1950s until the 1980s. The building that currently sits on the airport site was constructed in 1981 and was 8,000 square feet in size. But in the 1990s, Redmond and Deschutes County began to grow. That growth exploded from 2000 to 2006, when Redmond's population increased by a stunning 74.3 percent, making it Oregon's fastest-growing city and one of the fastest-growing communities in the country.

Under the exceptional guidance and leadership of the current airport manager, Carrie Novick, along with Redmond Mayor Alan Unger, the Redmond City Council and Redmond City Manager Mike Patterson, Roberts Field has kept pace with the rapid growth the region has experienced. In 2003 the airport was expanded by 16,000 square feet to a total size of 24,000 square feet. Once constructed, the new terminal will be 140,000 square feet and utilize energy efficient measures to achieve its goal of constructing a state-of-the-art building to serve the residents of central Oregon for many years to come.

Madam Speaker, Roberts Field today provides non-stop service to Eugene, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, and Seattle through Allegiant Airlines, Horizon Air and United Airlines and Delta Air Lines through services operated by SkyWest Airlines. It is the fourth largest commercial service airport in Oregon, operating approximately 44 arriving and departing flights daily. In 1997, 111,450 passengers boarded flights at Roberts Field; last year, 215,163 passengers departed from Redmond.

Madam Speaker, today's growth and activity at the airport is a testament to the farmers, ranchers and merchants who fulfilled the vision described in the Redmond Spokesman nearly 80 years ago. On August 15, 2007, I will join residents in Redmond to celebrate the great success that Roberts Field has enjoyed since it was established. That morning we will break ground on a terminal expansion that will further enhance the legacy of the Roberts Field-Redmond Municipal Airport. It will be an historic event that the next generation will look back on as a key step in the region's smart and successful growth.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I thank our ranking member for yielding the time.

Mr. Chairman, I have been a believer that when it comes to RPS, they are best implemented locally at the State level or regionally, and, indeed, our State of Oregon has done so very effectively after much consideration.

I came to the floor today thinking maybe this was a national version, if we were going to have one, to incent renewable energy, which I am a big advocate of, that this might work. But in reading this amendment as it has been proposed over the last few days, there are some issues that are contained therein that bring me to the point where I have to oppose it.

Predominantly they relate around the sections that preclude certain biomass, depending on where it came from, from counting toward the Renewable Portfolio Standards requirement. I just don't understand why if biomass taken off one part of a forest counts, biomass taken off another part of a forest doesn't count. These are arbitrary decisions contained on page 3 and elsewhere in this legislation.

I have an area in my district that has juniper trees that need to be removed, and everyone agrees they need to be removed. You could remove those juniper trees off the land not under the National Landscape Conservation District boundaries and they would count toward the biomass, toward Renewable Portfolio Standards, but those contained therein would not. The same with roadless wilderness study areas and things of that nature.

Additionally, I am concerned about a definition I just ran across involving rural electric co-ops and how that could be defined, because I know there are some co-ops that aren't necessarily rural only.

Finally, I would love to know why Hawaii is completely exempted from it.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

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