Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring the honor associated with the United States House of Representatives to Providence Hood River Memorial Hospital. On August 4, 2007, the hospital, located at 13th and May Streets in my hometown of Hood River, Oregon, will officially celebrate 75 years of service. I was fortunate enough to serve on the hospital's Board of Directors for five years and that experience provided me the opportunity to see firsthand the dedication and commitment of the staff and administration to the health of the entire community.

At the turn of the 20th century, 622 people inhabited Hood River. The advent of the railroad transformed this once isolated community into a hub for some of the nation's finest timber and fruit producers. Within five years, the population tripled. Today, 20,500 people call Hood River County home and timber and fruit produces remain a significant element of the region's fabric but so do windsurfers, skiers and hikers.

In 1905, local physicians came together to open Cottage Hospital at 716 Oak Street. Hood River's first hospital served the community for 19 years, before it was declared structurally unsafe and closed by the fire marshal in 1924.

Although a disappointing loss to the community, the closure of Cottage Hospital set into motion a tremendous local commitment to health care that carries on today. The Hood River Hospital Association organized for the purpose of building a new community hospital to replace Cottage Hospital. Successful fundraising efforts netted enough money to begin construction on a new hospital in 1931. Hood River Hospital admitted 501 patients during its first year of operation in 1932.

In the late 1940s, Hood River Hospital's surgery department owned all the latest equipment: an operating table, a spotlight, basins, forceps, knives, probes, clips and clamps. However, the medical field did not yet know the convenience of disposable items. Following surgery, rubber gloves were washed, dried and powdered to sterilize them. Surgery needles were sharpened, sterilized and reused.

As the population of Hood River grew after World War II, the patient population soon outpaced hospital capacity. The residents of Hood River swung into action again and with generous donations from community members the hospital was enlarged in 1958. In response to the abundant donations that were made in memory of those whose lives were touched by the hospital, the name of the facility was officially changed to Hood River Memorial Hospital.

A cycle was becoming clear; every two to three decades the hospital outgrew its space and an expansion was necessary to keep pace with the needs of patients and technological advancements. It happened in the late 1950s and again in the 1980s when community donations allowed for the construction of new patient care wings. In the 1990s the hospital footprint was expanded, allowing for the addition of a new family birthing center and the Ray T. Yasui Dialysis Center, the first dialysis center in the Columbia Gorge. All of these efforts were made possible by unwavering donations of time, talent and treasure from the Hood River community.

As Providence Hood River Memorial Hospital celebrates 75 years in a structure that no longer physically resembles the original hospital that opened its doors in 1932, another much-needed expansion and renovation project begins. This new phase of development will feature a new entrance and lobby. it also will allow the diagnostic imaging department to operate from one location. The short stay surgery department will be transformed to include 18 private rooms. The family birthing center will add a dedicated cesarean section operating room and other features to comfort laboring mothers.

Construction is set to begin in the fall and should be completed in about a year. At that time, the current building will be renovated and modernized to include a 10 bed rehabilitation center which will allow patients who have experienced a stroke or heart attack to recover and rehabilitate close to home.

Milestones such as anniversaries cause us to pause and reflect on history, achievements and the individuals that contributed to the successes that have brought us to where we are today. Madam Speaker, indeed it is important for us to celebrate milestones. However, it is my hope that we will all strive to acknowledge the extraordinary care and compassion that is provided each and every day by those who staff and support community hospitals throughout the year, not just during milestone celebrations.

My colleagues, please join me in congratulating Providence Hood River Memorial Hospital for their exemplary service over the past 75 years and in wishing them very well as they break ground on the next 75 years.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the SCHIP program is a good program, as it was created in a bipartisan manner many years ago. Its extension would be a good thing. But what we have before us today on the floor is not, because it robs from senior citizens in my district and elsewhere to provide extraordinary and expanded coverage of health care to people who may already have it, as well as much higher income levels. Eighty to one hundred thousand dollars you could be making, your kids could be eligible for your current health insurance from your employer, and this program, as proposed by the Democrats, would actually take those off, or potentially could take those kids off, as well as take away the Medicare choice that seniors in my district, some 31,798 seniors in my district run the potential of losing the choice they have for Medicare.

I was at a town meeting in the eastern part of my district about 2 weeks ago; and a woman said, please, Congressman, don't let them take away my Medicare. And that's what's happening today. And it's unfortunate the process has been so usurped that we didn't have time other than 1 minute to talk about it.

Madam Chairman, I ask to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chairman, I rise today on the McHenry amendment, which would cut $100,000 from the USDA, the Department of Agriculture. $100,000, that is the equivalent to what the out-of-pocket costs will be if you have a 10 percent cut in Medicare Advantage for poor health seniors in my State.

Point of Order

No, I actually was.

I am trying to put what $100,000 means in perspective for people who may actually get hit with higher costs because of other policy changes coming down the road as part of this overall budget.

I would also point out to my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle that the Agriculture appropriations bill also contains in it language related to drug reimportation; and, indeed, that is an issue in this bill before this House at this time.

Certainly, if the Medicare Advantage plans are whacked in a rural district, then perhaps seniors may want to take advantage of that provision. I don't know. Because drug reimportation poses a whole set of different issues that can be problematic, if you have seen some of the polluted drugs coming in from China right now.

So that is an issue that concerns me. Because if they lose their Medicare Advantage coverage that may help them in that area, who knows what is left in terms of cuts in Medicare.

Point of Order

Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman. Is there not in the underlying bill language dealing with drug importation?

So the policy here in this context would be related to drugs, because in the underlying bill is drug reimportation language.

There is not? Okay. So you are telling me in the Agriculture appropriations bill there is no language in there that deals with drug importation. That is news, if you read the bill.

So you can't talk about anything else in the agriculture bill, just the $100,000 cut.

I would be happy to yield.

parliamentary inquiry

I continue to yield.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will try and confine my remarks more to the McHenry amendment, which, as we know, would cut $100,000 out of the Department of Agriculture.

Now, that $100,000 may not seem like a lot to many on this floor, but it may seem like a lot to a senior if they are going to lose their Medicare Advantage plan. But I know that is not the issue before us at this moment. The issue really is, how do you control spending in the Federal government?

I think one of the ways you control spending in the Federal government is through the McHenry amendment. Because the McHenry amendment reduces Federal spending by $100,000, which may not seem like a lot to some and they may not want us to talk about how it could be used in other programs that may come before this House at a different time in a different way. But certainly, if you were going to lose your Medicare, you would be concerned about you might save $100,000 here that could be used somewhere else so you did not have to raise taxes on, say, health insurance.

Saving $100,000 here is a good thing. It may not seem like a lot, but it is still a good thing. It reduces spending, and this government has had trouble reducing spending. We have spent a lot of time on this floor debating amounts that are even less than $100,000. I would like to see us go farther than that, because I also know in other committees there is debate going on about having to raise revenues to fund other programs.

point of order

That is what I am speaking to, Madam Chairman. I am speaking to the $100,000 cut in the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture.

How am I not, Madam Chairman? How am I not confining my remarks? Could you delineate? Can you not talk about anything else, other than simply the words in the amendment?

So I am. This amendment, if approved, would save $100,000. This amendment, if approved, would save $100,000. I would like to be able to put that in a broader context for my colleagues in terms of what that might mean to other spending and other situations around here where the Democrats have decided to raise----

point of order

Madam Chairman, I am speaking to the importance of cutting $100,000 rather than $50,000.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Well, it would seem to me that they have narrowed what we can say, trying to silence the minority, trying to silence Republicans from bringing to light certain issues we care about. We have been restricted now to simply talking about a dollar amount on one amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2116, the Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act of 2007.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the construction of the Bureau of Reclamation's Owyhee Project in Malheur County, Oregon, located in the district I represent. This momentous occasion will be celebrated at a major community event at the dam this weekend. At the time of its construction, the Owyhee Dam was the highest in the world. The dam rises 417 feet above the river with nearly another 100 feet below the river surface. The arch section of the dam spans the distance of 2 football fields. The dam created the Owyhee Reservoir, which is 52 miles long and holds enough water to cover 13,900 acres with 1 foot of water.

You may be wondering how it came to be that one of the largest concrete structures in the world was built in a true American frontier. In the early 19th century, scouts, trappers, and traders began to explore all parts of the Northwest; the high-desert region of what would become the Oregon Territory was no exception. This area was and currently is home to bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, golden eagles, coyotes, and mule deer. The settlers in the area also discovered that the ground, provided with adequate water, could grow just about any crop including barley, oats, sorghum, wheat, alfalfa, beans, peppermint, spearmint, sugar beets, sweet corn, and more.

At the turn of the 20th century the need for more water became apparent and the Reclamation Service (now the Bureau of Reclamation) investigated several dam sites and irrigation plans. It finally issued a proposal in 1925 to construct the dam. The following year, Interior Secretary Hubert Work and President Calvin Coolidge approved the plans and in 1928 contracts were awarded and construction began.

However, as with any significant construction project, challenges arose. John Terry, a retired copy editor for The Oregonian and a member of the Oregon Geographic Names Board, recently highlighted a few of those challenges.

``The Bureau of Reclamation built a construction camp with housing, administrative buildings, water and sewer facilities,'' Terry wrote. ``Crews labored around the clock, although the winter of 1930-31 produced subfreezing temperatures and a 53-day work stoppage.''

In 1935, the first water was delivered to ranchers, farmers and communities in Oregon and Idaho. And while the dam continues to provide irrigation water, it also provides numerous other benefits, including flood control, recreational fishing, and excellent habitat for bighorn sheep, mule deer, pelicans, and cormorants.

At the dedication ceremony, President Herbert Hoover sent along his congratulation in a written statement ``commemorating the completion of the highest dam in the world.''

``The sympathy of the administration and the Congress and the wholehearted and fine spirit of the people of this community have cooperated to make the completion of this dam possible,'' President Hoover said.

We should emulate the cooperative work of those who raised this dam when demanding it meet the needs of today's farmers, ranchers, communities, and wildlife. I congratulate Owyhee Irrigation District Manger Jay Chamberlin and his staff on commemorating the completion of the dam. And I thank the local elected officials and Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Robert Johnson for their efforts to steward the water resources provided by the Owyhee Dam. May the next 75 years for the Owyhee Project be as successful and prosperous as the first 75.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding American and Oregonian, Mr. Ralph Goodwin, and to draw my colleagues' attention to the tremendous contributions Ralph has made to his industry and community.

Madam Speaker, this weekend I will have the honor of attending in picturesque John Day, Oregon the community celebration to commemorate Ralph Goodwin's retirement and the good he has done for his state and community.

On July 13, 2007, after 28 years of highly successful credit union leadership, Ralph will formally relinquish the reigns as CEO and president of the Old West Federal Credit Union. When Ralph assumed the top post in 1979 with what was then called the Grant

County Federal Credit Union, membership numbered 800 and assets were $2.5 million. As Ralph enters retirement, he leaves the Old West Federal Credit Union in excellent shape with over 7,500 members in four branch offices serving eight counties in eastern Oregon and assets of over $80 million. The positive growth under Ralph's leadership is remarkable, and a testament to how Ralph has always conducted business.

A true believer and advocate in the credit union movement, Ralph Goodwin's contribution to the communities of eastern Oregon and credit union philosophy is second to none. Through the World Council of Credit Unions, Ralph has participated in and been an indispensable part of efforts to bring credit unions and credit union philosophy to underdeveloped countries in the world, traveling to the Philippines and Uzbekistan to further this goal. Ralph's many years of civic leadership and steadfast commitment to the rural communities he has served has made a rewarding impact on many credit union members and employees that have benefited from his financial guidance and leadership example.

Throughout the credit union movement in Oregon and nationally, Ralph Goodwin is recognized as a leader and visionary whose passion and commitment to the credit union motto of people helping people is a core attitude of how credit union business is conducted. The high regard Ralph's colleagues have for him is exemplified by the service he has delivered and acknowledgment he has received on the state and national level, including being chosen as the Advocate of the Year by the Credit Union Association of Oregon as well as receiving the association's Distinguished Service Award, the highest honor bestowed upon an individual. Ralph is also well known and respected by many members on both sides of the political aisle in the Oregon Legislature and United States Congress as they can always rely on solid and straightforward information from him regarding credit union policy.

I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Ralph Goodwin, and delivering our thanks for the tremendous good he has fostered in the credit union movement and throughout Oregon. Ralph can now finally take a break with his lovely wife, Toni, and their seven children and 15 grandchildren.

Thank you for all that you've done, Ralph. I'm very proud to count you and Toni as my good friends, and wish you both the best over many happy years to come.

I am still a broadcaster, actually. My family has been in radio broadcasting for more than 20 years.

Mr. Chairman, it seems rather cruel that a radio broadcaster would not have his microphone turned on. And so I stand here today in support of this amendment because it really is about the first amendment. And it is about the freedom of speech on the air waves. And if you don't think so, go back to what the U.S. Supreme Court said in Red Lion Broadcasting vs. FCC 38 years ago when they cautioned that while the doctrine may be constitutional, if it's ever used to restrain speech its constitutionality should be reconsidered.

1974, in Miami Herald Publishing Company vs. Torino, the Court concluded that the doctrine inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.

Twenty-three years ago, in FCC vs. League of Women Voters, the court concluded the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed, and the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate. The U.S. Supreme Court made that series of rulings and, as a result, the FCC overturned it. And as a result of overturning that, all of a sudden, the air waves blossomed with both conservative speech and liberal speech.

It's not my fault that Air America didn't find a huge audience out there and went bankrupt. There are others out there who have done very successfully. It has encouraged speech.

If the fairness doctrine is put back in place, as it was pre-1987, you will silence, not expand, public debate. I've been a broadcaster. I know what it was like when it was in place, and I know what it will be like again. And while I don't always agree with those who are on the air waves, I will always defend their right to speak their piece because it actually energizes people to get involved.

So yes, I have a talk radio station and yes, it does have Rush Limbaugh on it, and it does have Sean Hannity on it and Michael Reagan and others. And this is what American broadcasting is about, in part.

But what we're really about here is protecting the fundamental constitutional rights of first amendment speech that we stood on this floor and raised

our hand to protect and uphold, and the courts have made it clear that reinstituting the fairness doctrine, if used to restrict speech, would be unconstitutional.

Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to express my deep disappointment that we're not able to move forward on the gentleman's amendment from California, and the peril that it may put the next amendment in.

If you want to talk about cuts in crisis, you come out to rural Oregon, rural Washington, rural Northern California, the areas that my friend and colleague from Washington knows all too well.

The largest county in my district had 15 or 16 libraries, all of which are now shuttered and closed because this Congress and the last failed to reauthorize the Secure County Roads and Schools legislation that the Congress before, in 2000, put into law.

The effect of all that, and the effect of this not going forward is those counties have a 1-year stay of execution because in the emergency supplemental there was legislation that funded them for one more year.

But as the good gentleman from Washington State knows, with the decline in the timber industry, the decline in harvest on Federal lands, these rural counties have been devastated. They have no tax base in some cases, or very little; 70, 80 percent of land mass is Federal lands. There's been a commitment for 100 years by this Congress to share revenues, and then those revenues went away. Law enforcement is going away. Basic services. You all would throw a fit if they went away in Washington, D.C. or any other urban area.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, I understand, and I appreciate what the gentleman has done to assist us in the past. My frustration is the one I have to share, because when I go home, people don't understand why we can keep funding all these other things and can't take care of sort of an organic funding issue that affects them deeply.

The first bill I cosponsored in this Congress with my colleague from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, and many others was to reauthorize this program. I believe the first letter I sent was to the new chairman of the Resources Committee begging for a hearing to reauthorize this program.

The folks at home don't understand this process, and sometimes neither do I. But if we have to bring down the House to try and get help to people who deserve it, then that's what we'll have to do.

It's really unfortunate that we would abrogate this commitment to these people in rural areas and not allow us at least to move forward, and certainly with the next amendment, which merely fixes a technical correction, allows the Resource advisory committees to go forward, but spends no money.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the chairman, and I've commended him before for his work in our behalf in this very difficult problem we face in the rural areas. And you've been terrific to work with. You've been most generous, not only with your time, but with your assistance. And I supported you and that bill when it came before, in opposition to my own President, and would continue to do so, because I know who sent me here, and I know what they want. And you may have missed my earlier comments.

I'm sorry you've had to put up with me there. The point is, I've done everything I can to try and get the committee that I served on for 8 years to even hold a hearing to reauthorize this bill. When I was on that committee in 2005 and chaired the Forestry Subcommittee, we marked up a reauthorization in 2005 by March, and we passed it out of the committee by June.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague Mr. DeFazio for his work on this amendment with me.

I would like to point out that on page 182 of the committee report there is listed 30 different laws that have not been reauthorized and are being funded. Some of these laws were last reauthorized 28 years ago. So the fact that we have something before you that has just gone out of operation here in less than a year, and we are trying to do a technical correction here to reauthorize it, I don't think is deserving of a point of order.

Well, I'm not sure everyone is, so if I may continue. There are over 4,500 projects that these resource advisory committees have worked on. They have leveraged $292 million to improve watersheds and wildlife habitats, and reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. No resource advisory committee has been disbanded or melted down. There are 70 of them in 13 States. No RAC-approved project has been appealed or litigated. No other active land management initiative in either the Departments of Agriculture or Interior can equal such a track record.

This has brought disparate individuals together to do good things for the land, habitat and watersheds in a comprehensive way that leverages local funds and support.

Today, as we debate this issue on the floor of this House, fires are raging at Lake Tahoe, destroying homes and habitats and watershed. Those sorts of efforts, where they tried to get in and thin in this watershed and protect it and reduce the threat of fire, might have been allowed to occur had there been a resource advisory committee like these, and I don't know what they have got there, but certainly they were not able to get the job done before the fire hit.

We are trying to do good things for our national forests, and I know others are trying to as well. I just hope we can approve this.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Father Todd Unger, who is celebrating his 25th anniversary as a Catholic priest later this month. I join the parishioners of St. Peter Church in The Dalles, Oregon in congratulating Father Todd.

Father Todd has served the people of the Diocese of Baker, Oregon with dedication and humility. He was ordained a Catholic priest for the Diocese of Baker, on June 29, 1982 in Redmond, Oregon--the town where he was born. His first assignment was as Associate Pastor in Pendleton, Oregon at St. Mary Catholic Church from 1982-1986. He rose to Pastor in 1986 when he was transferred to St. Elizabeth Catholic Church in John Day, Oregon. He served there from 1986-1990. He served the next 8 years as Pastor of St. Patrick Catholic Church in Madras, Oregon. He undertook his present assignment, as Pastor of St. Peter Catholic Church in The Dalles, in 1998.

In addition to his duties as Pastor at St. Peter Church, Father Todd administers St. Mary's Academy in The Dalles, a pre-kindergarten through eighth-grade school. St. Mary's Academy has been in continuous operation for 142 years providing an educational faith community for students in Wasco County, Oregon. During his 9 years at The Dalles, Father Todd has twice been called upon to assume the additional duties of principal at the school, once for a few months and once for the entire school year.

In addition to all of his church-related tasks, Father Todd has also been an active citizen in every community that he has served. In Pendleton, he was a member of Kiwanis and a Red Cross Swimming Instructor. In John Day, Father Todd again taught swimming for the Red Cross and began what has been a career-long interest in serving as a volunteer firefighter for the community. In Madras, he again joined the Volunteer Fire Department, and in 1994 he was named Firefighter of the Year. He also served as a member of the Central Oregon Council on Aging, was an active member of Kiwanis, and this time he taught first aid for the Red Cross. In The Dalles, Father Todd became a Rotarian, and again joined the Volunteer Fire Department. He was named Firefighter of the Year in 2000.

Everywhere that Father Todd has gone, he has tirelessly ministered to the spiritual and physical needs of the community. He has added greatly to the quality of life in the communities he has served. Father Todd is a sterling example of what it means to be of service. I hope these words in the Congressional Record will serve as a small indicator of thanks from the citizens of the Second Congressional District of Oregon and our congratulations on his Silver Jubilee as a Catholic priest.

Mr. Speaker, it saddens me that once again I have to remind my colleagues of the current emergency occurring in my district and throughout many counties in the rural West all because the Federal Government has violated its promise to America's forested communities.

Here I have the front page of the May 17 edition of the Grants Pass Daily Courier in Josephine County. Notice the photo. It is a banner that says ``Sheriff Out of Service.'' ``Service jobs slash 42 sheriff's deputies, 28 juvenile correctional officers among those laid off. Medical rescue help may be delayed.''

The last 3 years Congressman DeFazio and I have been warning the Congress that these are the things that are going to happen out in our part of the world if we don't fix for the long term the county payments issue. In Jackson County, the most populated area of my district, all 15 public libraries have closed.

Now, the underlying bill has a 1-year fix for this. It is an emergency bridge, and for that we are indeed thankful and appreciative. But the problem continues. The 1 year does not give enough assurance to the financially strapped rural communities to restore the hundreds of jobs and countless public safety services that have already been compromised by Congress's failure to have a long-term solution. As the Medford Mail Tribune editorialized today, ``Josephine County has laid off 42 sheriff's deputies, ended patrols, and virtually shut down its jail. Curry County,'' in Congressman DeFazio's district, ``which has lost 68 percent of its general fund, also has no sheriff's patrols and has asked the National Guard to provide security for coastal residents. Jackson County closed its libraries and plans to lay off nine sheriff's deputies, road workers, and other employees for a total of 172 positions.

``There are those in Washington, D.C.,'' the paper writes, ``who will paint the 1-year extension as a great day for rural counties. Meanwhile, back here in Mudville, there is little joy.''

So I sent to the Rules Committee this morning two amendments that would have extended the emergency funding for years, not months. The first amendment was identical to that passed by a 75-22 vote in the Senate with complete offsets for a 5-year extension. The second amendment I submitted would have extended the emergency funding in the emergency supplemental bill for 2 years, not 1, without increasing the overall cost of the bill or changing the funding distribution formula. Unfortunately, both of those amendments were denied along party lines.

The work to secure a long-term extension and reauthorization of these funds must continue. I will not give up. I will not quit. I will not rest. The Congress will be forced to address this issue over and over and over again until we reach agreement on a long-term solution for the forested counties and keep the government's commitment.

My good friend and colleague Congressman DeFazio and I sent a letter, which I would like to put in the Record, on May 17 to the emergency supplemental conferees, which was signed by more than 90 Members of our Congress, 74 of which were the Democrat Party, asking that a 5-year solution be included in the emergency supplemental. Many conversations with Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner have made them aware of this emergency, as has a recent Presidential meeting that I had with Senator Wyden. We appreciate all the support for seeking a long-term solution and will be relying on all of us to get this done.

My colleagues, though, we cannot wait any longer. More to the point, the people of America's forested communities cannot wait any longer. We need to act for a long-term solution.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 17, 2007.

Hon. David Obey,

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Robert C. Byrd,

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Jerry Lewis,

Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Thad Cochran,

Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Obey, Chairman Byrd, Congressman Lewis and

Senator Cochran: As you conference on the Emergency

Supplemental Appropriations bill for FY 2007 (Supplemental)

to fund vital government programs, we urge you to support the

Senate passed language to reauthorize and fully fund the

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of

2000 (P.L. 106-393) and the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program

(PILT). The Senate language was passed by an overwhelming

vote, and identifies offsets.

P.L. 106-393 expired at the end of September 2006

endangering the loss of payments to over 600 counties and

4400 school districts in 39 states. In addition to

reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools program, the Senate

passed language would further benefit these rural communities

by fully funding, for the first time, the Payment in Lieu of

Taxes program, which provides general funds to 49 states.

Rural communities have relied on these programs to provide

stable funding for rural schools. health care, law

enforcement and other critical programs.

The elimination of the Secure Rural Schools and Community

Self Determination Act would default on the 100 year old

federal

commitment to our rural communities that depend on these

payments to keep their communities strong and stable. Fully

funding PILT, for the first time ever, would provide much

needed economic stability for the rural communities that

support our public lands.

Please support the Senate passed reauthorization language

of P.L. 106-393 and full funding for PILT.

Sincerely,

Peter DeFazio, Don Young, Chris Van Hollen, Charles

Wilson, Leonard Boswell, G.K. Butterfield, Pete Stark,

Earl Pomeroy, Jon Porter, Timothy J. Walz;

Eddie Bernice Johnson, Neil Abercrombie, Collin Peterson,

Peter Welch, Carol Shea-Porter, Rick Boucher, Shelley

Moore Capito, Lois Capps, John Conyers, Henry Cuellar;

Lincoln Davis, John Doolittle, Gabrielle Giffords, Raul

Grijalva, Baron Hill, Steve Kagen, Ron Kind, Dan

Lungren, Jim Matheson, Jim Marshall;

Michael Michaud, Brad Miller, Grace Napolitano, Devin

Nunes, Solomon Ortiz, Ted Poe, Vic Snyder, John Spratt,

Gene Taylor, Bennie G. Thompson;

Buck McKeon, James L. Oberstar, Ed Perlmutter, Nick

Rahall, David G. Reichert, John T. Salazar, Cathy

McMorris Rogers, Steve Pearce, George P. Radanovich,

Rick Renzi;

Mike Ross, Bill Sali, Bob Filner, Louie Gohmert, Doc

Hastings, Wally Herger, Jay Inslee, Rick Larson, Doris

O. Matsui, Barney Frank;

Phil Hare, Alcee L. Hastings, Darlene Hooley, Sheila

Jackson Lee, David Loebsack, Jim McDermott, Michael

Arcuri, Brian Baird, Shelley Berkley, Bruce L. Braley;

Dennis Cardoza, Lincoln Davis, Jo Ann Emerson, Joe Baca,

Joe Barton, Earl Blumenauer, Corrine Brown, Donna M.

Christian-Christensen, Diana DeGette, Bob Etheridge;

Linda Sanchez, Mike Simpson, Betty Sutton, Mike Thompson,

Greg Walden David Wu, Heath Shuler, Bart Stupak, Ellen

Tauscher, Mark Udall, Maxine Waters, Members of

Congress.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's work on this issue, and I realize that the last Congress did not get it done. I complained about that at the time and tried everything I could to get it reauthorized.

It passed out of the Resources Committee, as you know, and then did not make any progress in either Chamber.

It has been a very difficult, uphill battle across the board to educate all of our Members about how we have got to solve this problem. If you remember the Kim family, who were tragically lost in Josephine County last year and Mr. Kim was later found dead, it is that county that just eliminated all sheriff's patrols.

So I am not here to point blame at anybody. You have been terrific in helping us in this 1-year extension. I am just saying thank you, but the big job remains because this problem does not go away.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American, a dedicated Oregonian, and a tremendous public servant: former Deschutes County Sheriff Les Stiles. Sheriff Stiles retired last month, and tomorrow night his many years of achievements on behalf of the residents of Central Oregon will be celebrated at a public event in Bend, OR. Sheriff Stiles dedicated his career to keeping the city of Bend and Deschutes County a safe and desirable place to live and visit. quit

Sheriff Stiles has always exuded an interest in public policy and making our communities better and safer. His commitment to our country dates back to his service with the U.S. Army where he was commissioned as a second lieutenant with the Corps of Engineers. Les also served with the U.S. Army Reserves as a captain in the infantry from 1968 until 1974. After serving in defense of the United States of America, Les turned toward educational pursuits that would provide him with the knowledge that, complemented with his life experience, would ultimately allow him to better serve the citizens of Oregon.

In 1974, Les received a bachelor's degree in English from Illinois State University. From there, he went on to earn a masters degree in public administration from the University of Northern Colorado. In 1982, Les focused exclusively on law enforcement and completed the grueling training session at the FBI National Academy's 128th session. Madam Speaker, this was not the end of the sheriff's commitment to education. Later in life he graduated from the National Sheriffs Institute and in 2005 he graduated from the FBI Executive Leadership Program. He spent 15 years teaching at Central Oregon Community College and was always willing to address a community group on a pending issue.

Madam Speaker, the city of Bend, OR, received great fortune when Les and his family moved to the beautiful central Oregon region after his training at the FBI Academy. During 25 years of law enforcement in central Oregon, Les served first as a patrolman, eventually as Bend's chief of police, and ultimately as the sheriff of Deschutes County. Sheriff Stiles has been a strong advocate in combating the scourge of methamphetamine and its devastating impact on communities across the country. Sheriff Stiles quickly recognized the significant harm and damage this terrible poison inflicts on families and communities and was a real leader in bringing the problems associated with methamphetamine use to the forefront and attention of the general public. He's been diligent in his efforts to get this deadly drug off the streets, a vocal proponent and promoter of prevention efforts, and tireless in his efforts to support and promote treatment programs for those in desperate need of help.

My colleagues, when Les Stiles took office as the sheriff of Deschutes County, he inherited quite a mess. His predecessor pled guilty

to Federal charges of embezzlement. Under Les's leadership, the county made great progress in correcting the problems of the past. Sheriff Stiles helped restore public trust and once again brought honor to the position of sheriff. He restored fiscal restraint and helped stabilize funding for a department that otherwise would have lost significant public services this past year.

Today I illustrate but a few of the tremendous successes Sheriff Stiles achieved over a long and distinguished career. I appreciate my colleagues joining me in thanking Sheriff Stiles for all he's done on behalf of the people of Deschutes County, the Second Congressional District and the great State of Oregon. I wish him and his wife, Carol, many good days ahead with their family, complete with many hours of good fishing for the sheriff.

I thank the chairman. I want to thank the gentleman from California for bringing this amendment. This is the newspaper from the largest county in my district. This is the April 7 edition. All 15 branches of the library system in Jackson County closed the day before because the Congress did not keep its commitment dating back 100 years.

Yesterday afternoon, after the local counties tried to pass resolutions to fund these services, make up for the lost Federal funding that has been there for 100 years, the county workers in virtually every county, I will pick on Josephine right here, got together to get their pink slips. The county workers, dedicated public servants, laid off their jobs; 28 juvenile justice employees in Josephine County, gone; 11 in the District Attorney's Office, gone; half the sheriff's office, gone. There will be no sheriff's patrols, period, end of discussion.

You all are familiar with the case of the Kim family that was lost, devastatingly so in the Federal forest of Oregon last winter, and Mr. Kim died. This is the county. This is the county where these sheriffs' deputies and others tried to find and rescue them. Because the government isn't keeping its commitment, no sheriff's patrol, period; 1642 square miles will have no sheriff's patrol. Sheriff Gilbertson is beside himself. He has to meet the State mandates to keep the jail open, but they are going to end up going from 140 beds to 30 beds.

Senator Wyden and I were at the White House today passionately making our case to the President to help us on this. This Congress needs to help us on this. We are extraordinarily frustrated, as you can tell, by Mr. Doolittle and others, that even though I supported this housing trust fund, if we've got money we ought to take care of these commitments first so the Federal Government keeps its word, so we can reopen libraries so we can have search and rescue and sheriffs' deputies out on patrol, not only in my counties, but out in the west.

Madam Speaker, today in Geneva, Switzerland the 60th annual meeting will commence of the World Health Assembly, the supreme decision making body of the World Health Organization. This year the government of Taiwan is applying for membership to the WHO and Taiwan has been applying to participate in the activities of the WHO since 1997 but they have been rejected due to various political pressures.

I think it's important that Taiwan be granted membership in the WHO. Taiwan is struggling to participate in the WHO not only for the sake of its 23 million citizens but also for the welfare of the 1.3 billion people in mainland China. With expansion of travel and trade between Taiwan and mainland China, contagious diseases can spread rapidly. Successful monitoring and prevention of infectious diseases requires cooperation from all nations.

Taiwan has a modern, world-class health care system and has lent its talents and resources to peoples in need throughout Asia and around the world. Such capabilities are particularly important in this era of globalization, and as apprehensions continue to grow about the emergence of dangerous illnesses such as SARS and the Avian Flu. For example, when the Avian Flu pandemic struck parts of Asia in 2004, Taiwan undertook a number of preventive measures to combat the outbreak and protect its population and those of other countries. As a result of this swift and innovative work, Taiwan has not experienced an outbreak of the avian influenza and has deterred its proliferation elsewhere.

The WHO plays a critical role in safeguarding and improving the health of the world population, and I support its admirable record of achievement as a guardian of international health. A glaring deficiency in the WHO's global program, however, is the fact that the 23 million people of democratic Taiwan are not allowed to contribute to, participate in, or benefit from its important initiatives.

I urge my colleagues to join me in my support of Taiwan's bid for membership in the World Health Organization. For the sake of Taiwan's citizens as well as their neighbors and partners in Asia and around the world, granting membership is the wise and equitable thing to do.

I thank the ranking member of the committee, my friend and colleague from California.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I must rise to strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help us deal with a very real emergency in the West and across the country by supporting this measure to fund rural schools and roads, and to help make sure that our farmers and ranchers and those who fish get the disaster aid that they have needed for some time.

And I have to forcefully disagree with the statement of administration policy issued by this administration which threatens a Presidential veto. To say that the closing of jails and schools and libraries, as is occurring right now in my district and in others, is not somehow an emergency is to simply ignore the reality of what is happening in the rural West. It is outrageous. Enough is enough.

First, the Federal courts and the government shut down the timber industry and timber harvest on Federal lands and took away our jobs in rural communities. Then the Federal Government quit effectively managing those forests. And last year, we again paid the price with 10 million acres of Federal land that burned at a cost of a billion and a half for taxpayers to extinguish those fires. But it gets worse. The Federal Government has failed to replant a million acres of Federal forest lands, America's forest lands that have burned over the years. And now it has broken a hundred-year promise to the rural communities who used to depend on the revenues from these forests that now aren't even managed.

And now the President threatens to veto this emergency funding bill designed to pay for firefighting, designed to pay for fishermen whose season was shut down last year, and to pay for keeping schools open and jails open and roads open, and providing disaster aid to farmers and ranchers. If we don't do this advanced funding for firefighting, they will dip into the accounts of the Forest Service and they won't do the very kind of work that needs to be done in the forest to prevent these kind of catastrophic fires that we are seeing over and over and over again. It is the same process that we decry is occurring in the military if we don't properly fund our troops. They will rip into these accounts. They will cancel the contracts, and they will set us behind. That is what happened to the Forest Service.

Enough is enough. The President should not veto this bill, and this Congress should pass it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to draw your and my fellow colleagues' attention to a tremendous and especially unique educational effort underway at

Columbia Gorge Community College in Wasco and Hood River counties, Oregon and to single out the highly effective leadership of The Dalles- Wasco County Community Outreach Team.

This gorgeous area of Oregon benefits from some of the most dedicated and determined local leaders in the country. The Dalles-Wasco County Community Outreach Team provides an outstanding model of local government cooperation and their efforts, in conjunction with Columbia Gorge Community College, have had a very positive impact on the Columbia River Gorge economy. The Community Outreach Team's members band together at all levels of city and county leadership and work in synchronized fashion to both tout the benefits provided in their region and echo with one clear voice the ways government at all levels can better work together and deliver favorable results to local residents and employers and the large number of visitors who flock to this picturesque area.

The rural nursing program at Columbia Gorge Community College is hailed as a state and national model of instruction delivery in a rural region and has added to the College's clout as a premier center of learning and training in the West. Another feather in the cap of Columbia Gorge Community College is their renewable energy training program. The Pacific Northwest is witnessing unprecedented, rapid growth of renewable energy and Columbia Gorge Community College, in cooperation with its renewable energy industry and workforce partners, has initiated and deployed the first renewable energy program on the West Coast that offers wind energy technician training. As the co-chair of the bipartisan House Renewable Energy Caucus, I'm very proud of the College's national leadership on this front.

The renewable energy program at Columbia Gorge Community College will be sustained through the same highly successful industry partnership model as developed by the College's nursing program. The development of renewable energy contributes to our Nation's security by lessening reliance on imported fossil fuels, and its development substantially reduces the impact of fossil fuels on the important issue of climate change. Workforce training is an essential element of renewable energy expansion, and Columbia Gorge Community College is blazing trails on this exciting new front.

My colleagues, I ask you to join me in commending Columbia Gorge Community College and its industry and workforce partners for establishing the first program on the West Coast for renewable energy that offers wind energy technician training. They're providing outstanding results, and it's my honor to represent in the United States House of Representatives such dedicated local leaders.