[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 344-346]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        ARMED STANDOFF IN OREGON

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Comstock). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) until 10 p.m.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come 
to the floor this evening to speak about an armed standoff that is 
taking place in my State of Oregon.
  This is the ninth day of armed occupation of the Malheur National 
Wildlife Refuge where we have some lawless, reckless behavior on the 
part of out-of-State zealots who have taken over a Federal resource.
  This is really hard to comprehend for a moment. As has been mentioned 
by numerous commentators, imagine what would happen if armed protesters 
who were of a different color or of a different religion occupied a 
Federal facility in Chicago or Washington, D.C., or Philadelphia. We 
would not tolerate that behavior. We would watch people move in to 
remove them. And yet, here, we are talking about the ninth day with 
impunity these people have undertaken to exert their own vision for an 
amazing region, this high desert plateau in eastern Oregon, a region of 
vast, arid, high desert with many key lakes and wetlands, that is the 
location of a wildlife refuge that was created in 1908 by President 
Teddy Roosevelt. It was deemed important to protect this critical 
flyway, this wildlife habitat. We found people there slaughtering 
wildlife to take the feathers to decorate women's hats.
  Now, I understand that there are some people who are involved who 
have some frustrations about issues of management of Federal resources. 
I appreciate that. This is a large, vast country, with 323 million 
people. In much of the West, a significant portion of the land is 
owned, managed, and administered by the Federal Government on behalf of 
all 323 million of us.
  I have no doubt that occasionally there is frustration, there is a 
difference of philosophy. Occasionally, there are mistakes made. One of 
the problems we face is that my Republican friends in Congress for 
years have refused to adequately fund these programs, being able to 
take care of them appropriately, and that leads to frustrations as 
well.
  But I think it is important to note that, contrary to the actions of 
these armed thugs, this land doesn't belong to them. It doesn't belong 
to the 7,000 residents of Malheur County or even 4 million Oregonians. 
This land is in trust for 323 million Americans.
  If we overrule these interests and get the Federal Government out of 
this equation, it is not going to revert to a few of the people in the 
region. The people who have first claim on this land are the Paiute 
Indians, who resided on it for thousands of years before the Federal 
Government came in and crowded them out.
  This vast high desert area is worthy of protection, whether it is 
monument or wilderness. Many Oregonians, including people in eastern 
and central Oregon, agree that this is worthy of protection. I met with 
a number in central Oregon this year who were organized, Friends of the 
Owyhee, for instance, people who think that this largest area in the 
lower 48 States of pristine beauty, of great environmental import, is 
the largest unprotected area in the lower 48 States.
  Now, I listened to my friend from Oregon who represents the area, 
Congressman Walden, express his concern and frustration. He talked 
about his challenges with the Steens Wilderness Area and talked about 
his deep concern that the administration may consider a monument in the 
future for this area, monument status for hundreds of thousands of 
these acres.
  It is interesting to note, I was involved with that process, but not 
as deeply as my friend Congressman Walden, who I think can justly claim 
credit for having been the driving force behind protecting the Steens 
Wilderness Area. But it never would have achieved wilderness status 
without the prospect, the looming threat, of a monument status.

                              {time}  2145

  I was pleased in a small way to have helped facilitate that going 
forward. We are all better off as a result of the process that took 
place.
  I was rather surprised that, in the course of his extensive comments 
on the floor of the House a week ago, while talking about the 
cooperative effort and the value of the work for Steen's Wilderness, he 
did not reference at all the process that has been taking place in the 
Malheur Basin, where we have seen advocates for local ranching 
interests, environmentalists, and people in the refuge management 
itself all come together from 2010 to 2013, developing a vision to 
protect this area, having one of the largest water projects in the 
country over the next 15 years: a plan, a vision, a commitment. And it 
was done on a cooperative basis.
  You can review what is going on with the ongoing media coverage or 
with these armed, out-of-State thugs who have invaded the wildlife 
refuge with no hint of what has happened there to be able to build a 
consensus, a vision, to protect and enhance this area.
  The notion somehow that government ought to get out of the way and 
turn this all over to the private sector is a bit strained.
  First of all, it should be noted that about half the jobs in this 
little county of 7,000 people are themselves government jobs. Many of 
them in the wildlife refuge are some of the best jobs in the region.
  They may not make much difference in Portland, Eugene, Seattle, or 
Washington, D.C., but in a region like this, it is having hundreds of 
family-wage jobs with good benefits, pensions. It makes a huge 
difference to the local economy.
  I am concerned that we are just passing over this expectation that we 
have an opportunity to be able to work with the affected people, move 
it forward, protecting this area as opposed to having folks who are 
threatening public employees and who have engaged on a personal basis 
in threatening people. We have had to shut down a number of government 
operations. It is sad, it is unfortunate, and it is wrong.
  We don't need outsiders coming into Oregon or politicians enabling or 
encouraging people to behave in this reckless, lawless fashion. We 
should, as a matter of fact, cut them off.
  There should be no electricity to the compound. They shouldn't be 
using the computers of public employees. We shouldn't have them 
ordering out for pizza or delivering food. This is goofy. It wouldn't 
happen in any other area if armed thugs took over a Federal facility.
  I have great sympathy with my friend and colleague, Peter DeFazio, 
who felt that, by the Federal Government not acting on the Nevada 
lawbreakers who refused to pay the heavily discounted grazing fees--a 
fraction of what they would pay if it were in private hands--and 
allowing this to go on unabated, they are encouraging this lawless, 
reckless behavior.
  I am pleased this evening that I am joined by my friend and colleague 
from California, Congressman Huffman, who, prior to coming to Congress, 
had a long, distinguished career dealing with environmental protection 
and dealing with balancing these interests and solving problems while 
we protect public interests.
  I yield to the gentleman for his comments this evening.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. I want to thank my friend from Oregon for his leadership 
and advocacy and calling us together for this important discussion 
tonight.
  I want to thank him also for bringing up our great conservation hero, 
Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican President who I can't help but think is 
rolling in his grave over the fact that cornerstones of his legacy--the 
protection of public lands, the protection of wildlife--are under 
constant assault by too many of our friends across the aisle and, for 
the last 2 weeks, by some very wrong-headed individuals who are heavily 
armed at a wildlife refuge in southern Oregon.
  Many Americans who turned on their TVs last week I think were 
probably surprised to see that this heavily

[[Page 345]]

armed extremist group had taken over a national wildlife refuge and 
that they were threatening to kill anyone who stands in their way.
  They were led, of course, by Ammon Bundy, the son of the infamous 
Cliven Bundy, that great philosopher who romanticizes slavery, refuses 
to pay legally required grazing fees, and organized his own armed 
insurrection in Nevada a couple of years ago.
  Americans were surprised to see that this group, which was part of a 
larger protest against Federal authority, public land policy, and 
environmental land violations, was so violent and so heavily armed and 
so extreme in their demands.
  I think so many Americans are just surprised to find that people 
would be so violently opposed to our Federal Government's role in 
protecting public lands and wildlife that they would do this kind of 
thing.
  But as a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, I have to 
tell you I am disgusted by these reckless, dangerous, and criminal 
actions, but I am not totally surprised. I am not totally surprised.
  Because on any given week in the Natural Resources Committee, you can 
hear the intellectual underpinnings of these dangerous, violent 
actions. You hear the divisive, over-the-top antigovernment rhetoric 
that is spewed by too many of our colleagues across the aisle, Members 
of Congress who may now be criticizing ever so gently the tactics of 
the armed criminals in southern Oregon.
  But out of the other side of their mouth they justify their actions 
by arguing that their anger and frustration with the government is 
somehow justified and legitimate and that we should essentially 
sympathize with them rather than be outraged by their seditious, 
violent actions.
  I am amazed and grateful for the fact that our Federal land 
management and law enforcement authorities have been so patient and so 
passive and so deferential because of their determination to try to 
bring this to a peaceful resolution. I admire and respect that. I know 
where they are coming from.
  But let's be clear about this. There has to be accountability for the 
occupiers. This armed group of thugs occupying a refuge in the State to 
my north can't be allowed to do this without consequences.
  Because many people--you mentioned our colleague, Peter DeFazio--
believe--correctly, in my view--that this wouldn't have happened had 
there been some consequences to the Bundy ranch standoff 2 years ago.
  Unfortunately, despite a very similar action, despite all of the same 
heavily armed threats and violence and the near avoidance of a tragedy 
that could have cost untold numbers of lives, there really were no 
consequences.
  My understanding is that Cliven Bundy still owes well over $1 million 
in ranching fees to the Federal Government and that he is still grazing 
his cattle without permission.
  And because there has been no consequences, his son and the current 
gang that is occupying the refuge obviously took the lesson that they 
could do it again. And they will do it again and again, as long as we 
continue to give them a pass.
  So there has to be accountability. There has to be some type of 
consequences for people that do this. But there also should be 
accountability for politicians who tacitly fuel incidents like this 
with their inflammatory and hyperbolic rhetoric that always casts 
environmental protection as an assault on individual rights and that 
falsely describes our national public lands as some type of a threat to 
State and private property owners. It is not right.
  The truth is, in California and across the West, our public lands are 
a cornerstone of lots of local and State economies, including those in 
my district. I have huge tracts of Federal public lands in the Second 
Congressional District of California, from vast national parks and 
recreational areas to three different national forests, to numerous 
national monuments and lots and lots of BLM lands.
  For many of my constituents, Federal lands help them put dinner on 
the table. It helps them pay their bills. Ninety-one percent of western 
voters surveyed responded that they believe public lands are an 
essential part of their State's economy. We need to remember this.
  So I want to protect public lands, and I want to work cooperatively 
with the Federal agencies that manage them to iron out differences.
  Our Federal Government isn't perfect. They make mistakes. Sometimes 
they are not the best neighbors. Sometimes they aren't always as 
responsive and respectful to the communities and individuals that live 
nearby.
  Part of our job as Members of Congress who represent those 
communities is to try to make sure that the government, for its part, 
is doing the right thing: listening, being a good neighbor.
  I have seen it work time and time again. And the notion that the only 
way to resolve differences with Federal land management agencies is to 
take up arms and threaten a violent insurrection is just absolutely 
nonsense.
  So those are a few of my thoughts. I certainly could go on at length 
about some of the success stories I have seen in my district, where 
communities have come together and actually collaborated with the 
Federal Government, not just as a neighbor, but as a partner to do 
things, including things that brought jobs to those communities.
  I have seen it in Trinity County with a process called the Trinity 
County Collaboration, where, believe it or not, environmentalists are 
working together with folks in the forest products industry and with 
Federal agencies and with all sorts of other interests and they have 
agreed to cut thousands of acres of trees as part of a comprehensive 
stewardship plan.
  It can work. It is very unique, but it can actually work. And it can 
work in other places. It almost worked in the Klamath, which is another 
part of southern Oregon where we saw this historic coming together of 
farmers and fishermen and tribes and government agencies.
  The problem is that collaboration depended on an act of Congress to 
actually happen. Sadly, under current management, Congress is where 
collaboration goes to die. And so we were unable to do the right thing 
there. But it can be done.
  I again want to thank the gentleman for his leadership in trying to 
interpose a little bit of sanity into this debate.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate your joining me in this conversation on 
your past activity and what we need to do in the future.
  You are right. These are, if done correctly--and you have had some of 
these experiences in California--huge economic opportunities.
  There are 47 million bird watchers in this country. They spend 
somewhere in the neighborhood of $40 billion a year. In the Malheur 
Wildlife Refuge, almost 24,000 people made that long, long, long, long 
journey. And I will guarantee you they wouldn't have been sightseeing 
there but for the wildlife refuge.
  You referenced the Klamath. It is a lost opportunity if we are not on 
our toes. Removing those four dams that have obstructed the flow of 
spawning salmon, prohibiting us from meeting our obligation to Native 
Americans, would create hundreds and hundreds of family-wage jobs for 
years in northern California.
  It is just one more example of where Congress is missing in action 
and where Congress hasn't appropriately funded these agencies to be 
able to fully meet the opportunities.
  It is hard for me to express my wonderment that some people will come 
to the floor and somehow try and celebrate the Hammond family, people 
who were convicted of arson and who have a record of having broken the 
law before.
  Public records show behavior that is not that of people you want for 
your neighbors. These folks do not have clean hands. Yet, we have out-
of-State, armed thugs taking over this facility to somehow talk about 
these convicted felons and undercut this process.
  I am hopeful that we can work together for people to focus on the 
opportunities and have the administration step up, act responsibly, cut 
these people off and remove them, and to take

[[Page 346]]

action against other lawbreakers like we would in other areas of the 
country.
  I appreciate you joining me today to have a little bit of 
conversation here to try and round out the picture that is missing from 
the media. It is probably not going to get us on Fox News, but these 
are things that the American public needs to know.
  Because there is a path forward. There has been a regional consensus 
that has developed. There is a vision to protect the wildlife refuge 
and its economic activities and future. It is one that we should 
support.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________