[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 172 (Thursday, November 19, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H13281-H13288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                MOLALLA RIVER WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 908, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 2781) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to 
designate segments of the Molalla River in Oregon, as components of the 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes, and ask 
for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). Pursuant to House Resolution 
908, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Natural Resources printed in the bill is adopted and the 
bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2781

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page H13282]]

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SEGMENTS.

       Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(___) Molalla River, Oregon.--The following segments in 
     the State of Oregon, to be administered by the Secretary of 
     the Interior as a recreational river:
       ``(A) Molalla river.--The approximately 15.1 miles from the 
     southern boundary line of section 19, Township 7 south, Range 
     4 east downstream to the edge of the Bureau of Land 
     Management boundary in section 7, Township 6 south, Range 3 
     east.
       ``(B) Table rock fork molalla river.--The approximately 6.2 
     miles from the easternmost Bureau of Land Management boundary 
     line in the northeast quarter of section 4, Township 7 south, 
     Range 4 east downstream to the confluence with the Molalla 
     River.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) 
and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GRIJALVA. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert 
extraneous material on H.R. 2781.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2781, 
introduced by our friend and colleague, a new Member of this House, 
Representative Kurt Schrader of Oregon. H.R. 2781 would add just over 
21 miles of the Molalla River in northwestern Oregon to the Wild and 
Scenic Rivers System. This beautiful mountain river rises in the 
Cascade Range east of Salem. It flows through old-growth forests and 
deep-rock canyons until it meets the Willamette River near the town of 
Canby, Oregon.
  More than 20,000 people in the towns of Canby and Molalla draw 
drinking water from the river. The Molalla is a short drive from 
Portland and is a popular destination for thousands of people who 
recreate along the river every year. Steelhead, salmon, and cutthroat 
trout rely on the river for crucial spawning and nursery habitat.
  The river corridor served as a trail for indigenous tribes long 
before European settlers reached its banks, and early pioneers found 
the river a vital source of drinking water for homesteading, as well as 
an important trade route.
  In more recent times, however, the river was the victim of neglect, 
with illegal dumping and other activities degrading the water quality. 
This degradation prompted creation of a broad-based coalition of more 
than 45 nonprofit, civic and conservation groups; local, regional, 
State, and Federal agencies; numerous waters users; and property owners 
dedicated to protecting and preserving the Molalla River.
  The alliance is a leading supporter of Representative Schrader's 
bill, as well as the city of Molalla and Clackamas County. They believe 
the designation will help keep the Molalla clean and free-flowing, 
while attracting more visitors to the river corridor. More visitors, 
more fishermen, more kayakers, more campers, and more hikers mean more 
meals at local restaurants, more stays at local hotels, more customers 
for outfitters and guides, and more economic development for the local 
communities.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today designates two segments of the 
Molalla River: 15.1 miles on the main stem and 6.2 miles on the Table 
Rock Floor. These designations are consistent with recommendations from 
the Bureau of Land Management, and the administration supports this 
legislation.
  When Representative Schrader testified before the Natural Resources 
Committee on this bill, he asked the committee to consider whether this 
``wild and scenic'' designation would have any impact on roughly 400 
acres of timberland included in the corridor. As my colleagues are well 
aware, this is a significant issue in Oregon because the revenue 
generated by harvesting Federal timber is used to fund public education 
in the State.
  Since the hearing, both Representative Schrader and the committee 
have clarified two important points: the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
does not prohibit logging, and there are no logging contracts in place 
or planned for the river corridor anyway. We were pleased to be able to 
resolve the concerns of the bill's sponsor.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. Speaker, Congress created the Wild and Scenic Rivers System in 
1968 to preserve rivers with outstanding natural, cultural and 
recreational values in their free-flowing state. The Molalla is a 
worthy addition to that system. I commend Congressman Schrader for his 
hard work in crafting the bill and helping the committee prepare the 
bill for consideration by the House today.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2781.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise to oppose 
this legislation, and I do so with a degree of conflicting views. Let 
me explain. On the one hand, I have fundamental concern with the 
impacts that wild and scenic river designations can have on surrounding 
property owners, river users, either upstream or downstream, and the 
restrictions that such designations can have on private citizens. Most 
importantly, such designations preclude the ability to make future 
decisions without--I say, Mr. Speaker--without an act of Congress. 
There are many ways to protect and manage our rivers without imposing 
such absolute, permanent, and inflexible mandates that do not allow us 
to adapt to new circumstances, evolving environmental science, and 
changing public needs and views.
  On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I am sympathetic when a Member of the 
House proposes legislation that directly affects the district that he 
represents. I believe that we must be respectful of the views of those 
who are elected to represent a district, and this, Mr. Speaker, is a 
two-way street. It means affording a level of deference when a Member 
has a proposal that affects just his district, and it means an even 
stronger degree of respect and deference when a Member opposes an 
action that is proposed in the district he was elected to represent.
  It is very troubling to me, Mr. Speaker, to see bills introduced and 
referred to the Natural Resources Committee, as an example, that would 
have extensive and often drastic negative impacts on the economic 
livelihoods of local communities, workers, and their families in the 
Western part of the United States, but that are authored and sponsored 
by Members from the east coast and the Nation's biggest cities.
  Mr. Speaker, this lack of respect on these issues is very troubling 
to me. Therefore, while I generally do not support such inflexible and 
restrictive river designations, I do have respect for the fact that Mr. 
Schrader of Oregon is a sponsor of this bill, and it directly affects 
his district.
  At the same time, I must agree with the position clearly stated by 
Mr. Schrader during his testimony at the subcommittee hearing on this 
bill. At that hearing, Mr. Schrader said that he was sensitive to the 
fact that this river designation would impact over 400 acres of timber 
matrix lands. When timber is responsibly and sustainably harvested on 
these matrix lands, funds that come from these harvestings are provided 
directly to the local schools and communities in that area. This is a 
way of partially compensating areas of the West that are home to high 
percentages of Federal land for Federal policies that limit economic 
development. These timber matrix lands are a commitment that's been 
made, and they're critical to the ability of hundreds of schools to 
properly educate their children and for the communities in these areas 
to provide essential services.
  Mr. Schrader, to his credit, said he was sensitive to this harm that 
his bill would have on these lands and the schools and communities that 
depend on these lands. In his October 1 testimony, Mr. Schrader 
specifically stated, ``I would ask the chairman and ranking member to 
work with me and my staff to ensure there will be no net loss of the 
acres available for timber management as a result of this 
legislation.''

[[Page H13283]]

  Mr. Speaker, no such provision or protection or offset has been 
included in this bill despite the honest recognition and explicit 
request from Mr. Schrader that action needed to be taken to protect the 
lands important to the schools and communities in his district. Several 
efforts to amend the bill to simply provide that the lands be 
identified elsewhere to replace the 400-plus acres locked up under this 
river designation bill have been blocked.
  The first blockage was in the Natural Resources Committee markup. On 
Tuesday, it was blocked by a Democrat majority on the Rules Committee. 
So it's been blocked two times. The need to address the loss of these 
timber matrix lands and the schools that depend on such lands was 
clearly identified and then ignored.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we learned on Tuesday, the day before yesterday, 
that 7 days earlier, on November 10, Mr. Schrader had sent a letter to 
the Natural Resources Committee chairman that appears to shift away 
from his subcommittee testimony that clearly asked for help in ensuring 
that the loss of timber lands be addressed in this legislation. This 
letter states, ``I am satisfied that this designation will not remove 
trees from the timber stock: there are no timber contracts in that 
area, and no timber sales are planned.''
  Mr. Schrader's letter further states that on the question of 
offsetting logging acreage, which he alluded to in his statement before 
the subcommittee, he says, ``I see no need to add such language to H.R. 
2781 at this time.'' This letter of November 10 appears to directly 
contradict the gentleman from Oregon's public testimony on October 1.
  Was the statement made in his testimony a mistake made in 
understanding the bill that he authored? Or is the position taken in 
his letter a reversal of his request for help on fixing the timber 
matrix land issue? When he states that language is not needed at this 
time, does he mean that his view on the need for offsetting the acreage 
may change in the future?
  Mr. Schrader later implies that there is no reason to offset these 
lands because no current timber contract exists, nor are there logging 
plans at the current time. So this begs the question, Mr. Speaker: is 
the concern for school funding only today and not what will happen 
tomorrow or in the future?
  Of course there are no logging jobs at this moment. It is well-known 
throughout the Northwest that timber harvest is at a standstill due to 
the struggling economy and the sharp drop in housing starts. In fact, 
just yesterday the Natural Resources Committee approved a bill to allow 
for existing Federal logging contracts to be extended due to the poor 
economic conditions. I think that's a good idea.
  So yesterday, just to put this into perspective, the bad timber 
market is used to push legislation to ensure existing contracts can be 
carried forward, but today the bad market is used as an excuse for 
legislation that will lock up hundreds of acres, not just until the 
market turns around but forever.

  Mr. Speaker, these are not insignificant questions, and I think that 
there needs to be some clarification of that. So I hope very much that 
we have an opportunity to resolve this apparent discrepancy as this 
debate continues.
  Again and again, this Congress acts to remove more and more land from 
the West from active, sustainable timber management. It is our 
schoolchildren that are paying the highest price, as school budgets are 
squeezed even tighter due to the actions of the Federal budget. You 
can't advocate for these schools and for wiser timber and forest 
management to ensure jobs in towns across the Northwest while at the 
same time advancing legislation that makes the problem permanently 
worse, and that's exactly what this bill does.
  Some may say, well, it's only 400 acres. Yet if that was such a small 
amount, then why the resistance to offsetting these lands? The offset 
ought to be easy if this issue is just a small acreage. The fact of the 
matter is is that this 400 acres comes on top of thousands and 
thousands of acres that have been locked up in recent years. Excusing 
these 400 acres today feeds the notion that tomorrow or next week 
perhaps we can excuse taking another 6,000 acres away from helping 
schools and rural communities.
  I believe that Congress must take responsibility for its actions and 
the impact that it's having. It's time to demand that schoolchildren in 
small towns don't pay the price for the unwillingness of those in 
Congress to provide offsets for their actions. So it's for these 
reasons, Mr. Speaker--again, with deference to the gentleman who 
sponsored this bill, affecting only his district--that I must oppose 
this bill.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I will yield as much time as he may 
consume to the sponsor of the legislation, Congressman Schrader, who 
did a magnificent job and had a collaborative effort with communities 
and agencies in bringing this legislation forward.
  Mr. SCHRADER. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on this bill. 
It is really tremendously exciting to the good citizens of Molalla and 
Clackamas County, Oregon, that we have this bill to vote on today. I'm 
sorry to have some of the discussion we've been hearing so far. It's 
basically irrelevant to the bill.
  The idea here is to designate the Molalla River as a recreation river 
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act that was initiated by a small 
gathering of folks a few years ago, local river stewards and Molalla 
residents who were looking to preserve and protect their river and aid 
their local economy by increasing tourism. They came to me earlier this 
year with the idea. Our team liked it, and we introduced the bill. It 
immediately garnered major support in Molalla and Clackamas County. And 
as of now, this bill is supported by the city of Molalla, the Clackamas 
County Board of Commissioners, the Oregon Department of Fish and 
Wildlife, and over 40 Oregon-based environmental, recreational, and 
public safety groups. All recognize the social, economic, and cultural 
benefits of this bill.
  In particular, I want to personally thank the many people who worked 
so tirelessly on this bill. This includes the president of the Molalla 
River Alliance, Mike Moody; the mayor of Molalla, Mike Clarke; Molalla 
City Manager John Atkins; Police Chief Gerald Giger; the executive 
director of Molalla River Watch, Kay Patterson; the president of 
Molalla Community Planning Organization, Jim Gilbert; and, frankly, 
Oregon river enthusiasts like Kavita Heyn and Erik Fernandez.
  I also want to personally acknowledge Ryan Morgan, a lifelong Molalla 
resident and member of the Molalla City Council who tragically died 
earlier this year. Ryan was a river enthusiast and a strong supporter 
of this legislation. I would like to think he is looking down on us 
right now with pride over the vote and this particular piece of 
legislation that he worked so hard to get on the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, the Molalla River is a national treasure in my State. 
Historically, it serves as both the trail for indigenous Molalla 
Indians and as a trade route between pioneers in the Willamette Valley 
and residents of eastern Oregon. Its Table Rock Trail, which is also 
known as ``Huckleberry Trail,'' was used by members of the Warm Springs 
tribe in search of huckleberry- and salmonberry-picking areas in the 
early days. Early settlers used its fertile lands and drinking water 
for homesteading, and its Ogle Mountain mine attracted migrants during 
the gold rush.
  Today the Molalla River is known for its many recreational purposes, 
including hiking, diving, fishing, kayaking, white-water rafting, 
picnicking, mountain biking and horseback riding. It's also nationally 
recognized for its beautiful and scenic wildlife. It provides spawning 
beds for threatened steelhead trout and Chinook salmon and is an 
essential wildlife area for the pileated woodpecker, red tree vole, 
red-legged frog, northern spotted owl, Pacific giant salamander, and 
both golden and bald eagles.
  Designating the Molalla River as recreational under the National Wild 
and Scenic Rivers System would have tremendous economic, cultural, and 
environmental benefits for the region. Economically, we need jobs. It 
would attract more tourism and create tons of new jobs in a very, very 
difficult environment in Molalla, something the State of Oregon 
desperately needs in

[[Page H13284]]

its rural communities. Environmentally, it will protect the character 
of the river, preserving it so future generations can recognize its 
rich cultural, historical, social, and economic benefits.
  I want to thank Chairman Rahall and Subcommittee Chair Grijalva for 
their support and efforts on this bill. I also want to thank their 
staff, and in particular Leslie Duncan, for all of their hard work.
  A lot of focus has been around the comments the gentleman from 
Washington referenced that I made in committee. My goal there as a 
lifelong friend of the timber industry, particularly in my legislative 
arena, was to make sure that if there was impact on logging in this 
area, in my county, in my State so desperately in need of economic 
energy, that we'd investigate that. The committee--I appreciate the 
work they've done--and I and my office checked into whether or not 
these matrix lands were going to impact the timber harvest or any of 
the land in that area.
  And I am pleased to report back, as has been reported, that the BLM 
has told us again and again that there are no timber sales in that 
area, and there have never been any timber sales planned in that area. 
So I guess I'm a little concerned that as I step up and try to make 
sure that the concerns of the gentleman from Washington are addressed, 
and we bring this topic up, which I hope we will bring up in any of the 
legislation that comes from his State and other States, that it seems 
like it's turned against one.

                              {time}  1230

  I don't feel in any way that I have changed my view on the need to 
make sure that if there is an issue, we have offsetting lands for 
harvest if it is going to affect local communities.
  But no private landowner, I want to make this very clear, no private 
landowner in this area, including Weyerhaeuser, including some of the 
big timber companies and the small woodlot owners, is objecting to this 
bill. I go to the gentleman from Washington's earlier comments that if 
this is a bill brought forward by a Member who represents the State, 
and more particularly represents the local district in which this wild 
and scenic river designation is to be had, that generally he votes in 
favor of these things. So I ask him politely to consider changing his 
viewpoint and voting for the bill since such a Member has done the work 
that he asked to do in the first of all.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Would the gentleman from Oregon yield?
  Mr. SCHRADER. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank very much the gentleman yielding.
  As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am very sensitive to 
Members of Congress who have projects or issues within their districts 
to be able to do them. I just, as I mentioned in the committee and as I 
mentioned on the floor, I just have a general problem with the wild and 
scenic designation. It is on that principle that I rise to oppose this.
  But I do want a clarification because I spent extensive time in my 
opening statement talking about your testimony in front of the 
subcommittee on this issue where you said very specifically that you 
recognized this as timber matrix land, and you wanted to work with the 
chairman and the ranking member, myself and Mr. Rahall, so there would 
be no net loss, meaning you would be open to transfer of lands or 
whatever the case may be. We attempted to accommodate you with an 
amendment that we had that unfortunately was ruled nongermane, and so 
we didn't get a chance to address that. The second chance we had at 
that was in the Rules Committee where they can waive the rules, and 
they decided not to.
  I would like to ask the question, it appears to me that now you have 
reversed your position because you have said that there is no potential 
timber harvest, and I would like you to clarify what you mean by that.
  Mr. SCHRADER. I would like to reclaim my time.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Washington's concern. As I said 
before, it is very explicit in my testimony and testimony from the 
chairman, and others who have spoken in favor of this bill, that we 
have investigated it. I am a full supporter of making sure that if 
there is a problem in the timber harvest or management area that is 
going to impact the economics of my community, that I will be there.
  Right now, this bill is an economic driver for this community, sir. 
We actually have to make sure that this bill passes because the tourism 
that is going to happen in this bill is the big economic driver in this 
community. Right now we actually have serious drug issues in our State 
and, frankly, in this area where, if we have the opportunity to make 
sure that law enforcement has the ability to get special protection and 
maybe special opportunities, we can make sure that this area stays drug 
free. We can make sure that we actually have a better chance to make 
sure that this community is going to be economically advantaged. The 
men and women in my State and in my district are hurting, so I want to 
make sure we have economic opportunities.
  Frankly, I would just like to say in my final comment, at this time 
this State faces tremendous economic hardship. We are one of the most 
heavily hit States in the Nation. We are an income tax State, and we 
are hurting. We are hurting bad in this economy.
  I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 2781. Aid the good people of 
Molalla and Clackamas County. They need your help. This will attract 
tourism to the river, more business for river guides, anglers, more 
stops at the local restaurants, hotels, and shops that preserve the 
character of the river so future generations can enjoy its cultural, 
historic, and recreational benefits. I really urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I just wish the gentleman would have yielded to me because he did not 
acknowledge his change of view of his testimony where these matrix 
lands are potential revenue if in fact they are harvested. He just 
simply said there will be no harvesting. But by passing this bill, you 
will forever, you will forever, Mr. Speaker, take those 400 acres out 
of ever being harvested. So that begs the question, if there is no 
logging now, what about in the future if the market turns around and 
there is a higher demand, how do we go back and get these 400 acres or 
potentially 6,000 acres in the future? That is the question, and that 
is always the fundamental question on these issues.
  Keep in mind, our national forest lands and our Federal lands were 
designed to be for multiple purpose, and that means commercial 
purposes. On timberland, that obviously means logging activity which 
benefits local communities.
  And in this bill, I acknowledged in my opening statement, it is a 
small sector of land. Nevertheless, it is the principle. And the 
gentleman, unfortunately, did not respond to that particular issue. He 
just simply said the government when he said the bureau, but he didn't 
talk about the impact it would potentially have on local communities 
because of the lack of potential harvesting in the future.
  I think a land transfer and trade would have been very easy to do, 
and that could have been accomplished if we had adopted the amendments 
that we offered in committee, and the amendment that was denied to be 
even debated on this floor, which seems to be a pattern, but that is 
another story. So these potential 400 acres will now be gone forever if 
this bill were ever to become law. The drip, drip, drip of acreage 
being taken away leads to other issues.
  So while I respect the gentleman, and he talked very clearly about 
the potential benefits, I suspect that there will be a time in the 
future, if this bill were to become law, that there will be an ensuing 
lawsuit that will probably tie up some of the activity that he hopes to 
preserve for future tourism. Why do I say that? Because that has been a 
pattern, unfortunately, in many parts of the West.
  I have always felt that Federal lands ought to be multiple use, and 
when you put restrictions on them, you put restrictions not only on 
commercial activity but on recreational activity. That is where this 
goes. But this issue here is very simple. The communities

[[Page H13285]]

that depend on the revenue coming from commercial activities on these 
lands are, under this bill, denied forever in the future from getting 
any revenue from those lands.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, in reference to the drip, drip, drip, the 
current BLM management plan for this area was begun by the Bush 
administration. And what's more, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does 
not prohibit logging. It says it must be done carefully.
  I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) for his 
comments, sir.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Molalla River Wild 
and Scenic Rivers Act. I came to Congress, like many others, to 
continue work on conservation efforts with similar-minded legislators 
from across the country.
  But today, we have heard concerns that increased regulation would 
negatively affect industry and private landowners. This is simply not 
true.
  On November 5, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office reported, ``The 
affected segments, which total about 21 miles, are already protected 
for wilderness values, and the proposed designation would not 
significantly affect the way they are administered.''
  We protect these beautiful, powerful, and spiritual landmarks for our 
children so they may know the great lands of our lifetime. Indeed, our 
legacy is what we leave behind for our children's children. If we dare 
disrupt these natural treasures, we will forget why we have protected 
them in the first place.
  I want to thank the sponsor for his efforts to move this legislation 
forward.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  In response to my friend from Arizona, the subcommittee chairman, he 
said that logging, or commercial activity, could happen on these lands, 
specifically logging. But there is a proviso in there, as long as there 
is, and I will paraphrase, nondegradation of the existing area.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been around this business long enough to 
know that when there is a term like that and someone is opposed to some 
action or commercial activity, boom, you go to court right away, which 
means the costs go up, and, therefore, there are no contracts. And so 
you have de facto locked up these lands from any commercial activity. I 
think that is wrong.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy and the 
leadership of my friend from Arizona in permitting me to speak on this 
bill.
  It is my honor to share the representation of Clackamas County, 
Oregon, with my friend and colleague, Congressman Schrader. While I 
don't represent this particular area, it is an area that is known to me 
and one that I am pleased that he has been able to assemble a broad 
coalition at home to have meaningful legislation literally within a few 
months of his joining this body.
  This is an area that should never be logged. That is one of the 
reasons he has been able to assemble a broad coalition of interests in 
our community to make sure that it is given the wild and scenic 
designation.
  I have worked for years with the Clackamas County Commission, a group 
of men and women that is very sensitive to the dynamics of forest 
resources, agriculture, and industry. Clackamas County is a very 
diverse area that represents Oregon itself. I have worked with them on 
a number of wilderness provisions, and I will tell you that the 
agreement of the Clackamas County Commission does not come easily. They 
want to make sure that they know what they are getting into. They want 
to make sure that they are protecting the economic resource base. They 
are well aware that some of the revenues that come from our national 
forest lands find their way into local communities, particularly 
education. That is why it took us years to work on legislation that 
President Obama signed into law in his first weeks in office with the 
National Wilderness Act.
  The homework has been done here. This is an area, as the chairman 
mentioned, as the sponsor mentioned, that is not affecting any, any, 
land that will be harvested now or, frankly, into the future. You ask 
the people in that community whether they would like to, at some point, 
risk this precious resource and they will tell you no.
  This is an area, however, that is going to generate a great deal of 
economic activity. The gentleman from Canby referenced the proximity to 
the metropolitan area, that people who are kayakers, hikers, fishermen, 
other recreationalists already flock to this year-round. The 
designation and the protection of the Wild and Scenic Act is going to 
enhance that.
  Now ours is a State, unlike my friend from the State of Washington, 
that has protected far more of their forest resources. Oregon doesn't 
protect that much. In fact, that is why we are working to provide a 
greater array of protections for recreation, for water resources. This 
is an important step.
  I would like to express my appreciation to the sponsor for zeroing in 
on this early, for assembling an unprecedented coalition in Clackamas 
County of people who understand this is important today and in the 
future. I appreciate his being clear that his county would not be at 
risk economically, raising the question and working with the committee 
and the administration to make sure that that is dealt with. And 
anybody who has watched the career of this gentleman over a decade in 
the State of Oregon knows that he is in tune with the district and 
their needs. He has a long record of working with the natural resource 
industries, most particularly the timber industry. Whether or not they 
happen to agree on any particular item, he has enjoyed the support and 
respect from the timber industry because he does his job right.

                              {time}  1245

  And the committee and the sponsor have done their job right with this 
piece of legislation. It's going to make a difference for the county 
that we both represent and the State of Oregon for generations to come.
  I salute his leadership, and look forward to supporting it and hope 
that this is another signing ceremony that we can share at the White 
House.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would hang around, I will be more than 
happy to interact with him. He made a point I would like to elaborate 
on, and I will yield to him to follow up.
  He said two things in his remarks. He said, I believe, that this is 
an area that should never be logged. Listen, I respect the fact that he 
has that position. He's very straightforward. I mean, I have no problem 
with that position. I may disagree with it, but I certainly have no 
problem with that position. But if that is the case and that is the 
argument and the fact is that this land is never going to be lost, then 
for goodness sakes why didn't we take into consideration the fact that 
there are 400-plus acres that could have easily been transferred in a 
land transfer to someplace else to keep at least the economic viability 
in hand? That was not done. The gentleman from Oregon, the sponsor of 
this bill, asked for that. I was certainly willing to accommodate that, 
and we did that in our amendment.
  Now, if the idea is that you're going to lock up these lands forever, 
at least that's being straightforward. But that certainly isn't how 
this has been talked about and debated here on the floor today.
  Secondly, the gentleman from Oregon, again, the one from downtown 
Portland, made this observation: he said that Washington has more lands 
that are designated like this than Oregon, the implication meaning that 
maybe they want to catch up.
  Let me offer maybe a little different twist on that because I stated, 
based on my experience in my State that when you have designations like 
this, you restrict the access to those areas. Now, hopefully that 
doesn't happen. Hope springs eternal. Every time we have this sort of 
activity in Washington State, this issue is brought up and don't worry, 
and then you look in the future and it happens. It happened with a 
particular part of my district, for example, that was designated a 
wilderness area 20-some years ago, and we're

[[Page H13286]]

having a dickens of a time just trying to get the road to that area 
opened. Why? Because of the restrictions.
  So I will just tell my friends from Oregon that if they want to catch 
up with Washington, then you'd better watch out what you're trying to 
catch up to, because what you're catching up to is more restrictive 
activity.
  Now, it's 10 minutes to 10 back in the Pacific time zone. I am sure 
there are a lot of interested folks that are affected by this. I hope 
that they would take that part into consideration, and I hope they 
would take that part into consideration that, yes, these lands could be 
potentially logged as long as there was no degradation. Look at that 
word ``degradation'' and connect the dots as to how that would end up 
in court if, in fact, there were a contract.
  All of these things are real, Mr. Speaker, and so I just bring them 
up.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 
such time as he may consume to my friend from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for his 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand up today on this bill, and I actually intend to 
support it because I think I may differ with my colleague from 
Washington about some things. But the fundamental issue that I'm upset 
about is the notion that we can protect lands somehow by never doing 
anything again on them. And certainly there are areas and I've 
supported some of these new wilderness designations. I've tried to do 
it in a bipartisan way and tried to help. But doggone it, there are a 
whole bunch of other lands. The majority of lands in our State are 
Federal forested lands that are completely out of balance with nature, 
that cry out for good stewardship and balanced management. And I hope 
Washington never has to catch up to Oregon when it comes to 
unemployment.
  You get out in parts of my district in eastern Oregon, and we are 
pushing 20 percent unemployment in county after county. And all too 
often the biggest economic activity that occurs in the summer is not 
the harvesting of dead trees; it's the making of lunches for 
firefighters as catastrophic wildfire takes over.
  Now, my colleague from Oregon, Mr. Schrader, and I are working on 
legislation with others, Mr. Hastings and others, that will allow us to 
go out into the forest and treat these lands. It is a crying shame and 
I think absolutely erroneous to argue that the only way you protect is 
to lock up and ignore.
  This Congress, under Democrat leadership and with the good chairman 
who took the gavel I used to have when I chaired the Forestry 
Subcommittee, I hope will actually give us a hearing on our legislation 
after it's introduced and will actually give it due consideration, as 
in give us a hearing, give us a markup, let us put it into law.
  Let's take the Healthy Forests Restoration Act that passed in an 
overwhelming bipartisan manner by both Houses of this Congress and was 
signed into law in 2003 that has been very successful around our urban 
interface areas and wildland urban interface, where we can go in and 
thin out the brush, work with the communities in collaboration and 
reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire. Let's take those 
authorities that are now proven and workable and save taxpayer money 
because they're efficient and expand those out so we can protect 
watersheds, so that we can get ahead of these bug infestations that are 
killing off enormous swaths of Federal forest.
  And I don't sense that the chairman--and I'd love to know if he'll 
take this up--I don't know if he supported the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act when it was before the House, but it just so frustrates 
the people I represent and others that we may argue over a river here 
or something there and meantime the whole forest is dying, not just in 
the Northwest and on the east side, pine forest, but you get in 
Colorado and look at the damage there.
  Members of both sides of the aisle in Colorado have called for 
special initiatives to allow thinning there to get ahead of that bug 
infestation that's killing the pine. You look, frankly, at what has 
happened across the border in Canada. These are enormous infestations. 
And if you're concerned about climate change, then you have to have 
understood that if temperature is rising, the forests can't keep pace 
with the change.
  So if you want to do something to protect the forests for the future, 
then you need to thin them out now to be able to get out of drought and 
further stress and further bug infestation. And in doing so, we can 
reduce the cost to the taxpayers because we will get the forests back 
into balance; and when they catch fire, it will burn naturally and 
actually be fine.
  And, by the way, we can put people to work; and that's what this 
ought to be about. This House should be addressing how you actually use 
the resources we have in a manageable and responsible way to put people 
back to work, whether you're in John Day or you're in Prineville or 
you're in Baker City or out in Wallowa County.
  It's amazing the policies that have been put in place that restrict 
our access to our own forests, that even are so tight, so restrictive, 
you can't even cut a burned dead tree while it still has value and run 
it through a mill and make a productive wood out of it, lumber out of 
it.
  No, we'd rather have some other country do that and then we'll import 
it, while our stuff stands there and rots. Then, oh, by the way, that 
becomes the breeding ground for some next expansion of some bug 
infestation that will take the next healthy forest. You drive around 
Suttle Lake in central Oregon and tell me we couldn't have prevented 
the fire that destroyed things there.
  I can show you where when the Forest Service was given the ability to 
thin before this enormous fire a couple of years ago, the trees that 
they thinned around lived. Where they were denied access to go in and 
do forest recovery work, it destroyed everything. Oh, it will recover. 
None of us will probably be alive to see it. We might be. But, you 
know, it shouldn't be that way. It doesn't have to be that way.
  So while we debate this bill here today on the Molalla River and the 
Willamette Valley, there's a bigger issue we should be bringing to this 
floor, and it is about how we are entrusted with the stewardship of 
America's great forests, those reserved and set aside beginning in 1935 
by Theodore Roosevelt, who, by the way, when he did that speech in 
Utah, said the great purpose of forest reserves is, first, water for 
agriculture and, second, home-building. Now most people don't attribute 
that to Theodore Roosevelt, and you can go look up his speech in Utah, 
but that's what it was for.
  Now, obviously there are things that we need to do in our forests for 
other purposes than those two; but, clearly, protecting watersheds is 
an essential stewardship obligation that this Congress for too long has 
not done enough to deal with. And part of it, sure, we can add more 
money here and more money there and that can be good and we can debate 
how much, but the real issue is the underlying law that needs to be 
fixed so that our forest managers who are trained professionals can go 
out to do what they were trained to do.
  Can you imagine, let's say, if you were a veterinarian, and I don't 
know if there are any on the floor, maybe Mr. Schrader, but if you were 
a veterinarian and you had to go through the process a forester has to 
go through to treat an animal, you might as well shoot it in the head 
because it's never going to survive long enough to get the treatment 
you know you need to prescribe.
  So let's be reasonable about these things. We've done it before in a 
bipartisan way. We can do it again before America's great forest 
reserves go up in smoke and are destroyed. You go back to that Colorado 
example when the Hayman fire occurred and that whole watershed, the 
pictures of the mud coming into their drinking water and the dead fish. 
We don't have to live that way.
  But simply making the argument, as one of my friends made, that, 
well, we're just behind the next State in terms how much we set aside 
and don't ever do anything with and ignore is the wrong argument in my 
book, and so I would respectfully disagree with my friend from Oregon 
who made that argument because I don't think that's the measurement of 
good stewardship.
  The measurement of good stewardship is how you take care of it for 
the future, what you leave for the next generation, and that doesn't 
mean you never touch it again. It means active

[[Page H13287]]

management where it's appropriate. It means saving our watersheds and 
habitat for all God's creatures; and it means, by the way, in doing so, 
we can figure out a way to turn biomass into energy and turn our 
natural resources into jobs. That's what we need. And it can be hand in 
hand, and it can be responsibly done.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my friend from Oregon, Mr. 
Walden, that his comments are appreciated.
  I agree with you. There is a universal question about balance, 
restoration, and protection of our great forests, and I look forward to 
discussing those.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of 
the legislation, Mr. Schrader.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank my colleague from the 
eastern part of the great State of Oregon for supporting this bill. 
He's an acknowledged forest policy expert in his caucus; and if he 
thinks the bill has merit, I would hope that the rest of his colleagues 
would, too.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  I really appreciate my friend from Oregon, Mr. Walden, making his 
statement because this is just a very, very small part of the complex 
issues surrounding our national forest lands, and I thought he put it 
very much into perspective.
  I too in my State in the last several years have suffered from a 
number of forest fires. And it gets very, very frustrating that after 
the fire is put out that the potential harvestable leftover there is 
subject to litigation and you can never harvest it, which simply means 
that that timber becomes fuel for the next fire, and yet that is our 
policy.
  How that relates to this bill is that the focus, at least on my part, 
and I acknowledge that it is a very small portion and it's only 400 
acres, but we are forever taking those 400 acres out of potential 
commercial activity.

                              {time}  1300

  And it just seems to me that this is one part of it that we ought to 
be at least working and dealing cautiously with, because it's 
symptomatic of the larger issue of timber management in this country, 
as so eloquently stated by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to reserve my time at this point.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, let me yield 3 minutes to my friend, 
Congressman Wu.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation to 
designate about 21 miles of the Molalla River in Clackamas County, 
Oregon, as ``wild and scenic.'' It is a Federal designation that will 
help preserve the Oregon character of this beautiful river. The Molalla 
is a prime example of accessible, valued natural settings that 
Oregonians cherish as an essential component of our living standard. 
Beyond the essential function of supplying water to communities in 
Clackamas County, each year the river attracts thousands of boaters, 
hikers, and fishermen from up and down the Willamette Valley, from 
around Oregon, including eastern and central Oregon, and indeed, from 
around the country. I, myself, have floated this river, have fished 
this river, and appreciate its wild splendor, whether it's osprey 
fishing for trout themselves, or beaver and other animals swimming 
through the rivers.
  It's also true that in these very tough economic times the protection 
of special natural spaces like the Molalla supports Oregon's vibrant 
and crucial outdoor recreation industry, an industry which supplies 
73,000 jobs and injects $5.8 billion into Oregon's economy each year. 
That is why this bill has the support of diverse community leaders and 
groups, not just environmental groups, not just recreation groups, but 
economic leaders and community leaders, elected and appointed.
  From cities to counties, neighborhood associations, to recreational 
groups, sportsmen groups to environmental organizations, we all 
appreciate the pragmatic protection of our rivers and natural areas in 
a comprehensive, inclusive and fair way. This bill will ensure that 
Oregonians will always be able to enjoy what the Molalla River has to 
offer.
  I want to commend my good friend and colleague from Oregon, 
Congressman Schrader, for bringing this important bill before this 
body. I thank him, and ask for everyone to support this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I inquired a moment ago how 
much time. How much time again? And if I could inquire of my friend 
from Arizona again if there's any speakers. I noted that the gentleman 
from Oregon came down, and that's why I reserved. And I just wonder if 
the gentleman has any more speakers.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. There are no additional speakers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois). The gentleman from 
Washington has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Arizona has 
7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I made reference several times in my remarks of the 
unintended consequences, or alluded to unintended consequences, that 
happen with legislation like this. And let me give you a real-life 
example, and again, I alluded to it in my remarks.
  I'm talking specifically about the Stehekin town at the end of Lake 
Chelan in my district. This is a town that has no roads going into it. 
The only way you can get there is by boat, up the Lake Chelan, or by an 
airplane that can land on the lake. This is a gateway to a wilderness 
area, and this wilderness designation was made some 20 years ago. 
There's a road that goes back about 20 miles to hit the wilderness 
area. This is an economic driver for the town of Stehekin.
  Well, unfortunately, the road is in a wilderness area, and this is 
the unintended consequence, because you get a lot of snowfall in the 
Cascades, and this road gets washed out occasionally. It got completely 
washed out several years ago, and the obvious solution to that is to 
repair the road so that you can still have access to the wilderness 
area. But you have the one problem in this particular case, and that 
is, the road is in a wilderness area, which means there's no wiggle 
room. And so, it is literally taking an act of Congress, Mr. Speaker, 
to rebuild a dirt road to give access to a wilderness area.
  Now, I'm sure that that wasn't intended when this bill was passed by 
the Congress before I got here in the late 1980s. I'm sure that that 
was not the case, and yet, we passed the bill out of the House, I'm 
very pleased, in a bipartisan note. But just think about this 
principle. This is a road that gives you access to a wilderness area, 
but it happens to be on wilderness land. An act of nature washes out 
that land, and it takes an act of Congress, for goodness sakes, to make 
it whole again so you have economic activity.
  Several Members, several of my colleagues from Oregon have talked 
about the great economic activity that this designation is going to 
have. I hope they're right. But they should take into account a real 
life example in a small part of a State just north of them, namely, 
what's happened to the community of Stehekin at the top end of Lake 
Chelan in my district, because these are the real-life happenings and 
the unintended consequences that happen when you give total authority 
to the Federal Government.
  I hope it doesn't happen on the Molalla River, I truly don't. But I 
suspect, as I said earlier in my remarks, that that very well may be 
the case. And so I think that story is worth retelling, Mr. Speaker, 
because it's not told enough. The town of Stehekin is a very small 
town, and the issue isn't done yet. That bill is in the Senate. I 
certainly hope it passes.
  But I might mention one other irony. Those that are opposed, that 
were opposed to rebuilding that road, they don't live in Washington 
State. They live in other areas of the country. Why? Because you cannot 
damage wilderness. Even though this happens to be an economic lifeline, 
I'm sure it was the unintended consequences that they're talking about.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise, as I said in my opening remarks, 
to oppose this designation, not because the gentleman from Oregon, the 
sponsor of the bill, is doing what he thinks his constituents want. I 
respect that. I really do. I just have experienced firsthand enough in 
my time in Congress to

[[Page H13288]]

see that this leads to unintended consequences, and there are better 
ways to management and probably to provide economic activity 
surrounding the Molalla River than going this far.
  The second point is, we could have accommodated the gentleman from 
Oregon's concern about taking this timber matrix out with a simple land 
exchange. We're only talking about 400 acres. Yet, it was denied twice: 
once in committee and once by the Rules Committee. So those 400 acres, 
albeit small, are locked up forever. But, as I said, 400 acres today, 
maybe it will be 6,000 acres in the future. There's certainly been 
thousands of acres in the past.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to oppose this bill.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate, we 
interchanged ``wilderness'' for ``wild and scenic river'' designations 
throughout. But I think the point that Mr. Hastings made was an 
important one. And all of us were happy to work with Mr. Hastings to 
address the wilderness road issue that it raised. It was in his 
district. He wanted it. He wanted to get it fixed, and so it was done.
  This is Mr. Schrader's district, and he wants it so we should respect 
that as well. I want to also congratulate him on the fine work. This 
was a participatory process, stakeholders at the table. It was a 
process that everybody has an investment in, and the consequence of 
that process, and the fine work done by Mr. Schrader, is that we have 
buy-in, and we have tremendous support for it.
  Part of what we were talking about today as well were the claims. 
First, it was claims that this would stop logging. We pointed out that 
there was no logging on the land due to a management prerogative by the 
Bush administration. Then it was claimed, well, this might stop logging 
in the future. We pointed out that the wild and scenic rivers 
designation and the act does not stop logging in the future. So, then 
it was claimed, well, litigation might stop logging. Well, as the 
claims and the discussion changes, the argument keeps changing. I think 
this is a good piece of legislation. I urge all my colleagues to 
support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 908, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on passage of 
H.R. 2781 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on suspending the rules 
and agreeing to H. Con. Res. 212.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 292, 
nays 133, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 905]

                               YEAS--292

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--133

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Pence
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Brown (SC)
     Capuano
     Carter
     McCaul
     Melancon
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy, Tim
     Rothman (NJ)

                              {time}  1337

  Messrs. CRENSHAW and SULLIVAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. DENT, VAN HOLLEN and WOLF changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________