Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, later this evening South Salem High School in Salem, Oregon will kick off the school's 50th anniversary celebration by inducting the inaugural class into its Athletic Hall of Fame. In total, 14 athletes, three coaches, one team and two community boosters will be honored in what I am sure will be a ceremony filled with many memories of the past and pride for what the South Salem ``Saxon'' community has accomplished.

Lara Tiffin ('86), Athletic Director, Guido Caldarazzo, Interim Principal, and the entire selection committee should be recognized for their enormous contributions in putting together these ceremonies.

Although my district does not include Salem, as a member of the Oregon Legislature I spent much of my time in Salem, and my long time chief of staff and his fiancee are both South Salem graduates, so I feel a part of that community in many ways.

Those of us in Congress who travel extensively throughout our districts recognize the unique role high school athletics plays in our local communities. High school athletics is a bonding experience for the young men and women competitors and a powerful social environment for the student body at large. The athletic fields and gymnasiums of our local high schools are a gathering place for parents, families and community leaders, and the team's accomplishments are often a source of pride for local newspapers and media. Perhaps above all high school athletics is a forum where coaches pass on lessons of life--not just plays from a playbook.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating South Salem High School on its 50th anniversary and congratulating the inaugural class of the South Salem Athletic Hall of Fame. They include: Gary Allen ('63), Gary Barbour ('72), Phil Brus ('72), Phil Burkland ('55), Dana Collins Amack ('56), Gary Edmonds ('68), Scott Freeburn ('67), Bob Horn ('72), Dave Johnson ('63), Daniel Moore ('58), Bruce Patterson ('56), Neil Scheidel ('55), Jack Scott ('57), and Greg Specht ('58) as athletes. Dick Ballantyne (basketball '54-'70), Lee Gustafson (football '54-'60) and Marv Heater (football '61-'72), as coaches. Pappy Aschenbrenner (Principal '54-'72) and Phil Webb ('54) as special ``Community Members.'' And the entire 1954 football team who in their first year of existence were State co-champions.

Way to go, Saxons!

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 3161, I stand here today to express my strong opposition to yesterday's decision by the U.S. District Court in Oklahoma.

As of September of this year, 16 percent of all Oregonians, that is 541,117 citizens, have made the decision to be on the do-not-call list; 16 percent. These citizens have expressed their rights to uninterrupted free speech at the dinner table and the breakfast table and the lunch table, and the middle of the night.

Earlier this year, I received a call from Mr. Chad De Gennaro of Grants Pass, Oregon, that best summarizes the frustration that I think all of us have felt after getting these unsolicited phone calls in our homes when we did not want them. Chad said, ``As only one person, I cannot single-handedly defend myself against telemarketing companies with banks of telephones and hundreds of phone solicitors. No matter how many times I say that I do not want to be called again, sure enough, I wind up getting called again, and at all times of the day.''

Mr. Speaker, 541,117 Oregonians looked to the Federal Government, to us, to protect them from these unsolicited phone calls and trusted that this list would allow them some peace and quiet in their homes. That is what the FTC's list would have provided on October 1.

Here in Congress, we understood from the FTC that they had the authority to prepare and implement this list. The FTC believed they had the right to create this list; and more importantly, the

citizens of Oregon and across America knew and believed that the FTC was going to protect them by implementing this list and this legislation. Only the U.S. District Court of Oklahoma thought otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, I join my chairman and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today in support of this legislation. I appreciate the quick action of our chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), in moving this bill forward so that we can protect ourselves from calls we do not want coming into our phones and into our homes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today representing the second largest district geographically in the Nation in the House, other than the five States that are only single-Member States, so I know something about rural health care. I spent 5 years on a community hospital board. I am still a private employer, so I see that side of health insurance. My in-laws are retired and face this battle about lack of medical prescription drug coverage under Medicare. My parents battled that until their death. They paid for their own prescription drugs out of their own pocket. The issue that we are trying to resolve here in this Congress is for the first time in 40 years expanding Medicare so that seniors can have access to affordable prescription drugs. It is not easy to do. It is not simple to do. It is very difficult to do, to get it right. But I think we are very, very close in getting it right this time.

We have passed the biggest rural health care package probably in the history of this House. We are adding $25 billion in additional rural health care for the country in addition to what we already spend, $25 billion over 10 years, for some very good provisions. In the committee I supported increasing the access to rural home health care, a 5 percent increase in payments. I have supported efforts to add additional funding for physicians to locate in remote and underserved areas in rural communities. In my State, though, while certainly these are all issues, the biggest issue I hear from medical providers is the runaway cost of malpractice insurance because of the claims and the litigation. That is driving specialists out of their specialties. I was in a community in my district this summer, a fellow who delivered babies says he is getting out of the GYN part of OB-GYN. They are not going to be dealing with that. We had five doctors deliver babies in one county in my district, and they are down to two, and those two are having their premiums subsidized now by the local hospital. We have passed medical malpractice reform in this House to try and make sure that people have access to their doctors. It is time for the other body to act. I know many of my colleagues on the other side tonight could not support us on that. That is a problem in rural health care delivery as well that needs to be addressed.

But the crazy thing to me tonight is to hear that somehow we are not going to help seniors with this bill. We are spending $400 billion over 10 years to provide a prescription drug benefit and additional help to our hospitals and our physicians in our rural communities, $400 billion. Any dollar you take to spend somewhere other than prescription drugs comes out of our ability to help seniors most in need to provide prescription drugs. And so I think that is important to remember here. Those of us who have kids, they want everything in Toys R Us, but you cannot have everything in Toys R Us. You have to make choices. What we have chosen is to put the biggest benefit possible into those seniors most in need. That is why a senior, low-income, $12,000 a year, will have their prescription drugs paid for other than a very small copayment. They will not have a premium. They will not have a deductible. They are covered. But if you are a Ross Perot and making $65,000 or more a year, that benefit phases out. It is an irony to me to hear the other side talk about tax cuts for the rich, but they want free pharmaceuticals for the rich. I think with the limited resources we have, it ought to go to the poor, those in need.

Finally, this is not me, this is a Congressional Budget Office report that says under both acts, the House and the Senate bill, CBO estimates that all Medicare beneficiaries would have access to prescription drug coverage. This report goes on to say that in the House bill, CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan, independent, estimates that about 5 percent of the part D participants, that would be under this bill, would be enrolled in reduced-risk plans in 2006 with that share declining gradually in succeeding years.

We have heard a lot of political rhetoric tonight. CBO cuts to the chase. Both plans provide guaranteed access to prescription drugs for America's senior citizens. Both plans do that, the House and the Senate. We do it differently. We think on our side we do it more effectively, because in 23 years, if we do not change how Medicare operates, it goes completely in the red. I do not think Congress is going to let it go broke. The point is here, we are trying to create a new benefit with a new idea that says we can use market forces to drive down the cost of drugs so we can provide better care to the poorest seniors in America. That is what our bill does. That is what is being negotiated in a bipartisan, bicameral effort as we speak. This is not the time to upend that, nor is it the time to politicize it and end up another year going by without seniors having access to affordable prescription drugs.

Mr. Speaker, it was the brother of a man from The Dalles, the son of parents from Pendleton that perished, the extent of the tragedy that struck America, the terrible terrorist acts of September 11 spread like tentacles across the country.

While our innocence was shattered that day, America's resolve and our commitment and unity was invigorated and strengthened. We have responded domestically in strengthening our security. We have responded internationally in building coalitions to take the battle to the terrorists. We have had great victories. We face great challenges.

Together as a country, and as a Congress under the leadership of our President, we are making a difference for our first responders at home and to secure our borders, to make air traffic safer and air travel safer, and to root out the terrorists where they are, instead of waiting for them to come back here. We have seized 1,400 bank accounts and $200 million, two-thirds of al Qaeda's leadership were killed, and 42 of 55 of Saddam Hussein's top advisors, strategists and planners of hate are no longer a problem. We all know there is more work to do. As a Congress and as a country, we must resolve to do that work, to do it with a clear focus and a great unity which befits this great country of ours. Together we are Americans, and may we ask for God's blessing for our leadership and our future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I find the gentlewoman's comments disturbing for this reason. What we really heard her say, and what we are hearing on this motion is, we are only going to deal with something when it is a crisis. And that is all we are going to deal with is what is the crisis of the moment. That is a poor way to do public policy.

In fact, when the other side of the aisle had the opportunity to offer an alternative to the energy bill, they did not include these reliability standards in the opportunity that was offered in the committee, nor the second time when it was offered on the floor, nor the third time when they offered an alternative on the motion to recommit. So three chances, and then their lights went out. Now we have a crisis, and now this is all we are going to deal with, when it was not something they wanted to deal with in the bill to begin with from their side.

Why would we jettison additional funding for LIHEAP when we know that natural gas prices are going through the roof and the poorest among us are going to have trouble paying their heating bills this winter? Are we going to wait for a crisis then deal with LIHEAP then, when we can deal with it here in this bill? If this motion to instruct were held, we would not be dealing with it.

Why would we get rid of the provisions in this bill that deal with market transparency requirements that require increased FERC enforcement authority to prevent anticompetitive practices in electricity markets? Why would we not deal with that? Is there controversy over that? No, but there is no crisis at the moment. There was in 2001 in the West, when we had rolling brownouts and blackouts in California and prices through the roof. Why do we not solve that here? Why would we walk away? Because the crisis is behind us? I do not think that makes sense.

What we found after our blackouts in 1996 and after 2001 is that the grid needed investment and improvement. We came to the Congress, those from the Northwest, and we came to the President, and the President agreed and the Congress agreed to give Bonneville additional borrowing authority so we could begin constructing the additions that were needed in our grid. We needed to invest. That has been done.

That is what is needed around the country; and this legislation, H.R. 6, has provisions in it both to encourage research and development of new technology to make the wires more capable of transmitting more power as well as incentives to help expand the grid so it has the capacity to carry the power where it is needed when it is needed. Those provisions, if this motion were to prevail and be followed by the committee, would all be stricken. All we would deal with is the reliability standards, and that does not make sense to me.

There are many other provisions in this bill to help in natural gas, to help with domestic production of oil that we should deal with. They are separate, yes. They are getting domestic oil production up and domestic gas production up and gas and oil where we need it and when we need it to keep prices in check. Those are important. And, no, they are not related to the blackout. Of course not. But they are related when you pull up to the pump and pay $2.10 per gallon, or when you turn on your heater or your hot water tank and you are paying $3, $4, $6, and $7 for natural gas.

We need to deal with energy policy for this country in a comprehensive and thorough manner. This legislation does that. I ask my colleagues to vote against the motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pay tribute to the community of Nyssa in eastern Oregon's Malheur County and to commemorate the passage of an important milestone in the history of the town. This weekend the people of Nyssa will commemorate the centennial anniversary of the incorporation of their community. This is an event that symbolizes the endurance of the eastern Oregon way of life and the continuity that exists between the earliest settlers of our state and the people who proudly identify themselves as Oregonians today.

There is some debate about the origin of the name Nyssa. Some say it is an acronym for the New York Sheep Shearing Association, which sounds plausible enough given the tradition of shepherding throughout the town's history. Others insist that the town was named by the daughter of a railroad engineer who was reading a book on ancient history and named the town after St. Gregory of Nyssa. Whatever the source of the name, this much is clear: Nyssa stands for the small town values that still echo in the hearts of the people who call it home.

Known as the Gateway City to Oregon, Nyssa is located on the banks of the Snake River on the Idaho-Oregon border. Nearby the historic Oregon Trail, which brought thousands of settlers across the continent to the West, remains visible to this day. Nyssa's history as a town began in 1883 with the arrival of the Oregon Short Line Railroad, though the area was familiar terrain to the fur traders who operated along the Snake River in the early 1800s. The town's first Post Office was established in 1889 and the incorporation of Nyssa occurred in 1903, when the town had gained enough residents to merit elected city officials. In the generations that have followed the founding of Nyssa, the community has been home to hardworking farmers and ranchers who have made their homes in the high desert of Oregon.

The community was immeasurably enriched by the revival of federal irrigation projects in the area, such as the Owyhee Dam which was completed in 1932 to provide water for 120,000 acres of arid land surrounding Nyssa. The miracle of irrigated agriculture made the high desert of Oregon bloom and made possible the way of life that continues today. In the 1930s, many citizens of the Great Plains relocated to the area, drawn by the warmth of the people and the quality of life offered by the community. By the late 1930s, the number of acres being irrigated had attracted the sugar beet industry, and Nyssa saw the opening of the Amalgamated Sugar Company, a sugar processing plant that came into operation in Nyssa in 1938. Agriculture remains the base of the local economy, and most businesses cater to farm production and marketing of products, which include sugar, onions, potatoes, corn, mint, and wheat.

Like many communities in Oregon, the growth in agriculture during the first half of the century brought immigrant families to Nyssa to work the land. Many Hispanic families traveled to the area, where they raised their children and established roots that endure to this day. Nyssa also became home to many Dutch immigrants and later a number of Japanese-Americans who were interned during World War II. Many of these internees remained in the area after the war ended, where they continue to add to the richness of the town's history.

Despite the ups and downs of the Oregon farm economy and the need for many townspeople to find work outside of town, the people of Nyssa have remained loyal to their community. The town has maintained an excellent school system and the population remains stable at 3,100.

Mr. Speaker, since Nyssa was founded it has been home to hearty, self-reliant people who are proud of their history, loyal to their families and community, and representative of the rural way of life that still means as much to the people who live here as it did a hundred years ago. It is both a privilege and an honor to represent the good people of Nyssa in the U.S. House of Representatives. I congratulate them on the occasion of the Centennial of their community, and I look forward to traveling to Nyssa this weekend to share in the celebration with my good friends.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today because of the fire fighting funds being stricken from this bill.

This is an enormous problem for those of us from the West. Outside the city of Bend, Oregon, a fire burned 600 acres yesterday. This morning that fire is up to 4,000 acres; it is burning. The Forest Service tells us they will run out of money to fight these fires next week. OMB says we can borrow from other accounts; they can get us through until the fall.

Here is what happens year after year after year after year. We get through all the paperwork and the environmental process to be able to go out to do the healthy forest things that need to be done to thin the forests, get out the flammable fuels, do all that work.

We get into fire season. We have not budgeted for it properly. We pull the money out to fight the fires. And what does the Forest Service have to do? They borrow from the accounts, and they are ready to do the work to make America's forests healthier by doing the thinning, and they put the work off for another year. We come back in the fall and the winter, we replenish the accounts for the fires, and we do the process all over again. We delay what we need to do to fix problem that will get us to where we do not have as expensive a fire to fight, because it would not be as catastrophic.

Mr. Speaker, if I could enter into an unscripted colloquy with the chairman, my concern is this.

Do we have any assurance from the Forest Service that they will be able to go ahead with these contracts that they are planning to let for this summer and the work that they are planning to do, to do forest thinning and fuels reduction and categorical exclusion work to make our forests healthier and safer, or will any of those funds be pulled back to go into fire fighting instead?

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

And we are appreciative of that.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand what the gentleman says, and he has been most gracious and wonderful to work with on this issue. But the problem is, as we wait, the forests burn, the work does not get done, the issue is compounded. This is penny wise and pound foolish.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I admire his legislation and will take a close look at it. The State of Oregon for many years has done precisely that, buy an insurance policy to help pay for the cost of fire fighting. Of course, that cost continues to go up; but we do participate in that. So I think it is a good idea to consider.

So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I rise in great, great frustration about where we find ourselves today, especially with the lack of notice that these funds were going to be cut out, when we thought they were going to be there.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise today to express my strong support for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado, which is designed to force the government of Indonesia to do what until now it has utterly failed to do, bring to justice the murderers who killed two American citizens and wounded eight others in Papua, Indonesia, in August of 2002.

Among the victims of that tragic attack were Ted Burgon of Sun River, Oregon, in my district, and Rick Spier of Colorado, both of whom lost their lives. Ted's wife Nancy was wounded in the ambush, as were Ken Balk and Saundra Hopkins, also of Sun River, Oregon, and their young daughter. A number of other members of their party suffered injuries at the hands of the terrorists who perpetrated this cowardly attack.

Mr. Chairman, despite the time that has elapsed since the tragedy in Indonesia, the murderers of Burgon and Spier have not been brought to justice. Perhaps most disturbingly there seems to have been little effort on the part of the Indonesian government, which receives substantial aid from the people of the United States, to ensure that these killers are made to pay for their crimes. Indeed, strong evidence suggests that government officials have actively thwarted American investigations into the attack. This amendment is intended to correct this inequity.

Mr. Chairman, since the attack occurred, evidence has been brought to light suggesting that members of the Indonesian military, and not a rogue band of criminals, bears responsibility for the ambush. Following the attack, the Indonesian police conducted an inquiry and ultimately issued a report asserting that, and I quote, ``There is a strong possibility that the attack was perpetrated by members of the Indonesian National Army Force.'' Indeed, the attack occurred less than a half a mile away from the Indonesian military checkpoints. Moreover, various news services have reported that U.S. intelligence agencies have intercepted messages between Indonesian military officials implicating army personnel in the attack.

Mr. Chairman, from the beginning, Indonesian authorities have been less than cooperative in assisting the FBI investigations into the murders. Investigative agents were denied the opportunity to interview witnesses without Indonesian authorities present and were not permitted to bring forensic evidence back to the United States for analysis.

It is my firm belief that if prosecuting the murderers of American citizens on Indonesian soil is not a priority for the government of Indonesia, they should not expect to receive assistance from the people of the United States. My colleague's amendment would prevent Indonesia from receiving international military education and training funds until the President certifies to the Congress that the Indonesian government and the Indonesian military are cooperating with American authorities in their investigation into the attack.

Given the strong possibility that members of the Indonesian military were involved in the ambush, it would be an affront to the memory of Ted Burgon and Rick Spier, as well as the grieving families they left behind, to continue providing funding to the Indonesian armed forces. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for the amendment offered by my colleague from Colorado, which is designed to force the government of Indonesia to do what until now it has utterly failed to do--bring to justice the murderers who killed two American citizens and wounded eight others in Papua, Indonesia, in August of 2002.

Among the victims of that tragic attack were Ted Burgon of Sunriver, Oregon, and Rick Spier of Colorado, both of whom lost their lives. Ted's wife, Nancy Burgon, was wounded in the ambush, as were Ken Balk and Saundra Hopkins, also of Sunriver, and their young daughter, Taia. A number of other members of their party suffered injuries at the hands of the terrorists who perpetrated this cowardly attack.

Mr. Chairman, despite the time that has elapsed since the tragedy in Indonesia, the murderers of Burgon and Spier have not been brought to justice. Perhaps most disturbingly, there seems to have been little effort on the part of the Indonesian government, which receives substantial aid from the people of the United States, to ensure that these killers are made to pay for their crimes. Indeed, strong evidence suggests that government officials have actively thwarted the American investigation into the attack. This amendment is intended to correct this inequity.

Mr. Chairman, since the attack occurred, evidence has been brought to light suggesting that members of the Indonesian military, and not a rogue band of criminals, bears responsibility for the ambush. Following the attack, the Indonesian police conducted an inquiry and ultimately issued a report asserting that, ``there is a strong possibility that the [attack] was perpetrated by members of the Indonesian National Army Force.'' Indeed, the attack occurred less than a half-mile away from an Indonesian military checkpoint. Moreover, various news services have reported that U.S. intelligence agencies have intercepted messages between Indonesian military officials implicating army personnel in the attack.

Mr. Chairman, from the beginning Indonesian authorities have been less than cooperative in assisting with the FBI investigation into the murders. Investigative agents were denied the opportunity to interview witnesses without Indonesian authorities present and were not permitted to bring forensic evidence back to the United States for analysis. It is my firm belief that if prosecuting the murderers of American citizens on Indonesian soil is not a priority for the government of Indonesia, they should not expect to receive assistance from the people of the United States.

My colleague's amendment would prevent Indonesia from receiving International Military Education and Training (IMET) funds until the President certifies to Congress that the Indonesian government and the Indonesian military are cooperating with American authorities in their investigation into the attack. Given the strong possibility that members of the Indonesian military were involved in the ambush, it would be an affront to the memory of Ted Burgon and Rick Spier, as well as the grieving families they left behind, to continue providing funding to the Indonesian armed forces. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding me this time.

With great respect for my colleague and the committee, I rise in support of this amendment for this reason: When you get out my district in Oregon and over half of our lands are public lands. And the concerns raised by my colleague from the Lammot Valley are valid. People want to be able to go out and take the family, drive out one of these Forest Service roads, park their car, and walk out in the woods. They cannot do that now if they do not go buy a permit.

If my colleagues want to talk about confusion, there are parts of my district where now you have to buy 3, 4, or 5 permits, depending on which part of public land you want to go on, whether it is a public park or the National Forest Service or the county or whoever. I have to tell my colleagues, there are a lot of people who want us in this Congress to vet this issue better. I think it is only appropriate.

I have no problem paying a fee for a permit to plow the snow where I go skiing, and I do not know of anybody who does. I have no problem paying for developed campground areas, and I laud the effect of this program in that respect. But I resent the part of the program that says simply to take a walk out in the woods and look at trees in an undeveloped area, I have to go to some park ranger district somewhere or some Forest Service office somewhere that I do not even know where it is, maybe, and buy a permit to put in my window and spend 50 bucks or so so I can take my family out. I represent the 12th poorest district in the United States, and over half of our land is Federal land, and this is a burden these people should not have to shoulder.

So I support the gentleman's amendment. I think it needs to be vetted better in our authorizing committee, and I look forward to that opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, let me address this issue of the fish kill last year, because the science is really in dispute. Dave Vogel says, In 1988, and he is a scientist who has studied this carefully, a run totaling 215,322 salmon occurred on the Klamath River with identical flow conditions: 2,130 cfs in 1988; 2,129 cfs in 2002, but no fish die-off occurred. In 2002, there were 132,000 salmon and 33,000 died.

But why? Two dramatic and uncharacteristic cooling and warming trends occurred during late August and September where the Upper Klamath River was still naturally unsuitably warm that probably both attracted fish into the lower river and then exposed the fish to chronically and cumulatively stressful conditions.

The point being, in 1988 we had nearly double the number of salmon coming back, there was no fish kill, and we had the same amount of water as in 2002 where we had about half the run coming back and we did lose fish. None of us wants to see a fish kill. We are all trying to work together; and I would welcome the opportunity to work with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), to find a global solution. But this is not it. This is not the solution.

I have to raise an issue that was raised on this floor last night by my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Oregon, when he told the House that he would offer an amendment today, and I quote from his words last night: ``That would reduce water-intensive agriculture in one of the wildlife refuges in the United States where there is unregulated agriculture practicing on leased land dealing with the Klamath Basin.''

I would suggest that that was a misstatement. It is a misstatement because, first of all, these lands are governed by the Kuchel Act passed in 1964 that says: ``Such lands shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior for the purpose of major waterfowl management, but with full consideration to optimum agricultural use that is consistent therein.''

The leases, and I have a copy here of the draft leases, these are what the farmers have to agree to. And it includes information relating to the previous year's operations which include a report of planting date, cultivar variety, seed and seed piece treatment, crop yield, and units of tons by acre, and harvest date; on and on, including what pesticides are used, irrigation, tillage, burning, fertilizers on each crop. This is regulated, I would suggest, more than the Chinese regulate their agriculture.

Finally, these farmers work very hard to reduce pesticide use, and every year they are evaluated and they enter into probably the most progressive activity when it comes to limiting and reducing pesticide use that we have, and that is the integrated pest management concept. Time and again, they have entered into these agreements; and time and again, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and even the courts have found that these lands are being used in a compatible way.

Now, it is important to understand as well that even if we could find the water that was freed up by limiting crop restrictions on these 2,250 acres, it would not go to the refuges. It would go to other uses having higher priority, which could include private farmland. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service realized this in their determination made in 2002. Environmental groups sued on that determination and were unsuccessful.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also found that based on a USGS study that if you did not irrigate, I mean if you took irrigation completely off of these leased lands, at all, only a minor amount of water would be freed up because there would be a substantial consumptive use of water by the weeds.

Now, their amendment basically tells farmers in my district, and 62 percent of my folks have these leases, that they cannot grow onions, potatoes or alfalfa. They can only grow grain crops. And somehow, that is going to solve the problem or a part of the problem.

What my colleagues may not understand is that onions use 1.88 acre feet of water per acre. Potatoes, the villain from last year, consume 1.73 acre feet of water per acre. The very grain crops that you want them to only be able to grow consume 1.87 acre feet of water per acre, more than the potatoes use, equal to what the onions grow. Now, sure, maybe alfalfa consumes more water. But do my colleagues know what? If we just turned this over to wetlands, wetlands themselves consume 2\1/ 2\ to 3\1/2\ times the amount of water that potatoes and onions consume. So if you turned this over to the noxious weeds, they will drink up more than these farmers will.

Finally, these people have been devastated economically down there as farmers, and they have done enormous work to try and solve this problem. We spent $16 million putting in a new sophisticated fish screen in the canal that now routes nearly a million sucker larva down to three-eighths of an inch back into the river or into the lake. That would have languished forever. We got it done.

In conclusion, we are making efforts through the EQIP money that my colleague from Oregon voted against when he voted against the farm bill to do water reduction efforts to have more efficient irrigation systems. That farm bill, too, which the gentleman voted against, included the study, the 1-year study for removal of Chiloquin Dam, which has now been completed which we restored access to 95 percent of the habitat for suckers on the Sprague River. It was a principal blockage and reason why the suckers were limited in the first place.

My point is, we are taking action to try and solve the problem. This does not help.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I fully concur with the gentleman about basing this on science. In fact, when we had the National Academy of Sciences review the biological opinions that set up the water cut- off in 2001, the initial findings came back and said the decisions by the government were not backed up by science, and we are waiting for the final review now.

This bill is a rifle shot at a very tiny piece of a huge problem. And as I mentioned in my comments, fixing the fish screen on the A canal, dealing with fish passage at Chiloquin, which will probably result in removal of that dam which I will support if that is what the consensus is, those are the things we can deal with.

Ambient temperature as much as water temperature are both issues. I will be happy to discuss this further with the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I come from the great Northwest, and I am proud of the forests we have. My wife and I love to go out and kayak on the lakes, and we love to hike in the woods. Generally, you have to drive to get there. And when you get there, you want green trees, not black trees.

Now, we are not a State that dumps our garbage or our sludge in the ocean. We are a State that is actually pretty proud about how we have managed and restored rivers that were polluted, how we have created greenways and such. I thought I heard the gentleman from Florida talk about how we have commercial logging in Federal parks. That is prohibited by law, and that is not even the subject of this debate.

I know a lot of people who think wilderness is the same thing as a park, is the same thing as a national forest. You cannot do anything in a wilderness area but hike in there and out. And in some you have to have a permit to do that.

My colleagues, this is not about commercial logging. It is not. Not at all. This is about how we manage the public's land. And, yes, you have every right to have a voice in this, as I do. I just wish you would come out and see what we live in; how these lands are managed.

Do my colleagues know that we had enormous fires in Oregon last year and this year; fires that burned so hot they create a tornado effect that does a blow-down of trees? The embers blow 2 to 3 miles in advance. Those embers do

not look down and say, ``Oops, wilderness; oops, roadless; oh, private land.''

We need balance here, and this is not it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from North Carolina in a colloquy regarding the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management Protection Act of 2000 as it relates to access to private inholdings.

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the Bureau of Land Management needs to be reminded of its responsibilities to provide for the continuation of normal and generally used modes of access to private inholdings. This is especially important now because the Bureau of Land Management is in the process of finalizing its land management plans for the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. I ask for the gentleman's assistance in this matter.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that management concerns should be addressed through acquisition exchanges and ask for the gentleman's help in this area as well.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that and thank the gentleman for his work.

Offered By: Mr. Walden of Oregon

Amendment No. 15: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

For 3 years the House Republicans have done what the Democrats failed to do for the 30 years they were in the majority and that is pass prescription drug coverage for seniors. And every time we have moved to pass legislation, our colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle have done their best to throw up road blocks and Medi-scare, complete this year to buying TV ads already, attacking members of the committee who voted for prescription drug coverage. They want to make it a campaign issue, and that is wrong.

My parents until their death relied upon Medicare, and they paid for their prescription drugs out of their own pockets because their plan did not cover it. My in-laws and others in my district need this help, and they need it now.

Our budget sets aside $400 billion, $400 billion to help provide prescription drug coverage for seniors. The last time the Democrats put forward a budget, they reserved 360-some billion; $400 billion is what we are putting forward over the next 10 years.

Their plan, for which they did not even have a budget, would cost a trillion dollars. Now, on the one hand they will say Medicare is not going insolvent, and yet my colleague from New Jersey just blamed Republicans for whatever insolvency there may be. You cannot have it both ways.

The way we want it is not to negotiate with ourselves. We want to negotiate with the Senate to come out with the best package possible to make sure that every senior in America has access to affordable prescription drug coverage, and coverage that we can afford to continue for the length of Medicare, which should be forever.

We have got to get this right. We have to do it right. We have to use the competitive forces of the marketplace to make sure that we squeeze out the excesses so that we can extend the benefit, especially to those who need it most. And our legislation does that. It targets the greatest relief, the greatest help to the seniors most in need. And representing the 12th poorest district in this country, I will tell you, I am proud of this bill. I am proud of what it will do for our low-income seniors, and I am proud of what it will do for Medicare and America.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 215) honoring and congratulating chambers of commerce for their efforts that contribute to the improvement of communities and the strengthening of local and regional economies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 215, a resolution to honor and congratulate the chambers of commerce for their efforts that contribute to the improvement of communities and the strengthening of local and regional economies.

At the Federal level, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce makes up the world's largest not-for-profit business federation. It represents 3 million businesses, 3,000 State and local chambers, 830 business associations and 92 American Chambers of Commerce abroad. These groups are of all sizes and shapes, from large Fortune 500 companies to home- based one-person operations. A full 96 percent of the membership is made up of businesses with fewer than 100 employees.

The real work that is done in the trenches is done by local and regional chambers of commerce. It is these organizations that employ labor law experts, human resource professionals and pro-business staff lobbyists within one organization to bring businesses resources that they need. They provide help and information from the big picture of public policy to the nitty-gritty of complex employment laws.

In addition, these local and regional chambers give small businesses a legislative voice to promote business, protect the private sector from excessive

government mandates and help prepare States for prosperous futures.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleagues as well that these local chambers of commerce are leaders in their communities, assisting in civic organizations and in community pride work, cleaning up communities, helping neighbors, working on community events, helping for charitable causes, the men and women, the entrepreneurs of our communities who are really the success story of our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 215, supporting and honoring our chambers of commerce and their members. They offer unprecedented benefits, discounts and opportunities to business, which helps make States, regions and localities strong, healthy and vibrant.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.