Two-Part Agenda Includes Reforms to Reduce Red Tape, Bureaucracy

“House Republicans are returning to Salem with an aggressive agenda that empowers the private sector to create jobs and boost our economy,” said House Republican Leader Kevin Cameron (R-Salem). “Our agenda recognizes that without business growth in the state, there won’t be tax revenue to fund the government and its programs. Our solutions will create a better climate for Oregon businesses, while putting more money in the pockets of Oregon families.”

Highlights of the “50,000 Jobs in Five Years” agenda include:

• Providing tax incentives to businesses that hire Oregonians and invest in the state.
• Providing tax relief to Oregon families.
• Leveraging Oregon’s natural resources to help generate new jobs in rural Oregon.

“According to nonpartisan analyses, the plan’s $3.97 billion investment over five years would generate an estimated 50,000 jobs and generate $7.89 billion in personal income growth,” said Deputy Republican Leader Matt Wingard (R-Wilsonville). “The Legislature can pay for this entire plan by simply limiting new government spending to the rate of inflation. We believe Salem can meet this challenge, and put 50,000 Oregonians back to work in the process.”

Highlights of the “Reform Oregon” agenda include:

• Reducing regulations to help businesses grow and create jobs.
• Increase classroom funding through cost-saving PERS reforms.
• Make health insurance more affordable for individuals and families.

“House Republicans are offering solutions to grow Oregon’s economy, but it is not a partisan agenda,” Rep. Cameron said. “We intend to work with Democrats, just as we did in 2011, to pass measures such as these to improve our state’s business climate and generate the private sector jobs many Oregonians need.”

Lunch Hour with Rep. Greg Smith in Enterprise

SALEM – Representative Greg Smith (R – Heppner) will be holding a lunch hour meeting Friday, January 6, 2012 in Enterprise at Lear’s Main Street Pub & Grill.

Friday, January 6, 2012 @ 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm
Lear’s Main Street Pub & Grill
111 West Main Street Enterprise, OR 97828

Representative Smith will visit with Enterprise residents and those from the surrounding communities to discuss and address questions about the upcoming legislative session in Feburary.

WASHINGTON D.C. —

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYuavfGQCsU

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdrVR-Slljw

Rep. Walden introduced on May 31 the Central Oregon Jobs and Water Security Act, which delivers needed water to Prineville for job creation, clears the way for carbon-free energy at Bowman Dam, and creates new water conservation opportunities in central Oregon.

For more on the bill, visit Rep. Walden’s website: http://1.usa.gov/khtEu8

Proposed rule will lead to more litigation, hurt job creation, further separate taxpayers from their public forests, bipartisan coalition says

On Feb. 14, 2011, the U.S. Forest Service issued their proposed “National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule.” The rulewill govern the planning process for establishing management plans for the nation’s national forests and national grasslands.

This is the fourth attempt to implement a new planning rule since 2000. This proposed rule would have far reaching impacts on permitting processes and the current multiple-use standard for National Forest System lands. This will place additional burdens on multiple use industries, including grazing, timber, recreation, and resource development.

Walden and Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), organized a bipartisan letter signed by 60 members to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to tell him that this new rule fails to avoid the pitfalls that have put the Forest Service in seemingly endless litigation for the last three decades. Taken together, the signers of the letter represent 77.7 percent of the nation’s 193 million acres of federal forest land.

“The proposed rule moves the agency further away from a simple, concise rule that can be understood by both agency personnel and the public and implemented with a minimum amount of contention among stakeholder groups,” the lawmakers wrote. “By adding more process requirements and introducing new technical terms, you are increasing the likelihood that like previous attempts at reform, the proposed rule will be tied up in courts for years.”

“We foresee limited federal dollars available for U.S. Forest Service operations being consumed by these processes to the detriment of the health of our federal forests and continuation of multiple uses of our federal resources,” the lawmakers wrote. “This, in turn, will reduce the number of jobs in our already distressed rural communities and further limit the amount of American wood and fiber availableto aid our economic recovery.”

The lawmakers also note in the letter that the rule will shift significant costs onto already burdened taxpayers in the form of legal fees and settlements.

On January 18, 2011, President Obama issued an executive order that requires agencies to assure that the costs of a rule are justified by the benefits achieved and that the regulations impose the least burden on society.

“We do not believe that the proposed rule complies with the President’s executive order,” the bipartisan group of lawmakers concluded.

They then asked the Forest Service chief to redraft the rule to make it “simpler and less encumbered with process,” and pointed out that it’s possible to meet the goals of the agency without bogging it down and further separating the public lands from the many taxpayers that depend on them for sustainable clean air, clean water, recreation, harvesting of fish and wildlife, grazing, and timber production.

The full text of the letter is below:

May 31, 2011

The Honorable Tom Vilsack

Secretary of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

We write to express our concern over the Proposed National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2011 (proposed rule) that would affect the management plans of the nation’s 155 national forests and 20 grasslands.

With a keen interest in the active management of our nation’s federal forest resources and the multiple uses that benefit our global environment and our local rural economies, we were hopeful that this iteration of the planning rule would avoid the cumbersome and inefficient pitfalls that have led to seemingly endless litigation since the issuance of the first planning rule under the National ForestManagement Act in 1982. Instead, the proposed rule moves the agency further away from a simple, concise rule that can be understood by both agency personnel and the public and implemented with a minimum amount of contention among stakeholder groups. By adding more process requirements and introducing new technical terms, you are increasing the likelihood that like previous attempts at reform, the proposed rule will be tied up in courts for years.

In this era of shrinking agency budgets, we are very concerned that the proposed rule saddles the agency with a number of expensive processes and procedures, such as the assessments (Sec. 219.6), requirements to extensively document its conclusions regarding what is “best available scientific information” (Sec. 219.3), expansion of monitoring activities (Sec. 219.12), and the continued reliance on and further expansion of the “species viability” requirement beyond vertebrate animals to include all species, counting fungi, slugs and mosses (Sec. 219.9). We foresee limited federal dollars available for U.S. Forest Service operations being consumed by these processes to the detriment of the health of our federal forests and continuation of multiple uses of our federal resources. This, in turn, will reduce the number of jobs in our already distressed rural communities and further limit the amount of American wood and fiber available to aid our economic recovery.

We also caution that there is much in the proposed rule that invites litigation by those who oppose a balanced multiple use management approach on our forests. Under the National Forest Management Act, the U.S. Forest Service has historically been charged with the primary responsibility to manage our nation’s forests under multiple-use and sustained-yield principles, including mineral and energy development under the Mining and Minerals Policy Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. We are concerned that the proposed rule seeks to elevate vague, undefined new concepts and categories of analysis such as “species of conservation concern,” “restoration,” “social sustainability,” and “ecosystem resiliency” above its primary multi-use statutory mandate. The proposed rule also seeks to insert controversial climate change policies, not authorized by Congress, as a primary driver of future regulations on forest unit management.

These controversial proposed changes not only will add to the gridlock currently faced by the agency, but also will force significant costs onto already burdened taxpayers as the federal government is required to pay for agencies’ legal fees and, either as part of a settlement or because it does not prevail in litigation, other parties’ attorneys’ fees out of Judgment Act and Equal Access to Justice Act funds. In the latter case, the payments come directly out of the agency’s budget, further hampering its ability to manage our nation’s forests. The impairment of the process by which state, county, and local governments may meaningfully participate in the development of land and resource management plans (a process known as “coordination”, found in Sec. 219.7 of the current rule) further adds to the threat of litigation against the agency.

Given the above mentioned potential costs and risks associated with the proposed rule, we call your attention to President Obama’s January 18, 2011 executive order that requires agencies to assure that the costs of a rule are justified by the benefits achieved and that the regulations impose the least burden on society. We do not believe that the proposed rule complies with the President’s executive order.

We urge you to direct the U.S. Forest Service to redraft the proposed rule to make it simpler and less encumbered with process, and toeliminate provisions like the “species viability” clause that surpass Congress’ statutory direction. It is possible to meet the objectives of the National Forest Management Act and the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act without bogging the agency down with exercises that further separate it from the many citizens who depend on our nation’s forests for sustainable clean air, clean water, recreation, harvesting of fish and wildlife, grazing, and timber production. Please do not lose this opportunity to produce a planning rule that is truly simple, understandable, flexible and defendable in court.

Thank you for your immediate attention to these important concerns.

Best regards,

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz_z4DRCzII

“Our rural counties are facing financial crisis,” Atkinson said in his floor speech. “It is a crisis when our sheriffs cannot protect the people they were elected to protect because of a lack of money. They have to choose between letting meth dealers out of jail or sending officers into harm’s way without backup.”

Oregon counties are in a bind due to federal policy regarding federal forest lands. Most of Oregon’s land is owned by the federal government – 53% of all Oregon land and 60% of forest land according to Atkinson – and counties lose out on the potential tax revenues from those lands.
“Counties are facing bankruptcy without these payments,” said Atkinson. “Oregon would face a serious dilemma if these counties go bankrupt. Who would absorb the services these counties provide? Who would handle emergency services such as police, ambulance, and fire? Who handles the jails and land-use issues?”

The biggest problem, according to Atkinson, is the creation of national monuments throughout Oregon by the federal Department of the Interior; he called the proposed Klamath Siskiyou monument indicative of the larger problem. A problem exacerbated by Secretarial Order No. 3310 issued by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar in December of last year. It would allow the DOI to unilaterally establish national monuments without congressional approval or local input.
“It is wrong for the federal government to close off public lands without input from the local communities,” said Atkinson. “This monument would take over 600,000 acres of public land away from our control. Everyone in Southern Oregon and Northern California agrees; we do not want this.”

Atkinson also mentioned the mismanagement of federal forest lands, citing the Biscuit Fire in 2002. Over 500,000 acres burned due largely to what Atkinson described as poor forest management practices by the federal government. After the fire was put out, Oregonians were prevented from harvesting the timber left behind. He said Oregon would be able to take better care of the forest land, along with providing Oregonians timber jobs.

“A no vote tells the federal government, ‘go ahead and set up more monuments,’” Atkinson said of HJM 25 on the floor. “A yes vote tells the federal government to keep its word.”

House also passes bill to lift ban on new offshore domestic energy production

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has pointed to the increased use of different types of fuels in different locations as one factor in our nation’s gasoline price volatility. The proliferation of these specialty or “boutique” fuels increases the chance that localities using them will experience inventory shortages when nationwide fuel supplies are low; thus, causing gasoline prices to rise.

In 2005, Congress directed the EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) to undertake a Fuel Harmonization Study in order to examine the effects varying fuel standards might have on issues like fuel prices. This report was due to Congress by June 2008 but has never been completed, which is a clear violation of Congress’ intent to find out what causing price spikes in gasoline.

The letter called on Jackson to conduct the Fuel Harmonization Study as soon as possible and to respond to Congress promptly.

“Oregonians are tired of paying nearly $4 at the pump while the federal government fails to take a comprehensive approach to energy policy that would make us less reliant on foreign oil,” Rep. Walden said. “This study is just one step, and it should have been done long ago.”

Today, the House of Representatives also passed H.R. 1231, legislation that would lift the President’s ban on new offshore energy production by requiring the administration to move forward on American energy production in areas containing the most oil and natural gas resources.

In 2008, in response to record-high gasoline prices, both Congress and the President acted to end the decades-long bans on offshore drilling – opening new areas off the Atlantic Coast and the Pacific Coast.

Since President Obama took office, he has systematically taken steps to re-impose an offshore drilling moratorium. He first abandoned the (2010-2015) leasing plan that would have allowed for drilling in these newly opened areas. He postponed and cancelled previously scheduled lease sales. He later announced a restrictive drilling plan that placed the Pacific, the Atlantic and the Eastern Gulf off-limits to future energy production – the way it was before the record high gasoline prices of 2008.

“We can continue to develop renewable energy technologies like biomass while also allowing safe and responsible domestic energy production both on and off our shores,” Walden said. “We can create jobs, decrease our reliance on OPEC oil, and ease the pain at the pump with access to America’s great energy reserves.”

“On the west coast, we now import about 50 percent of our crude oil, the majority of which comes from OPEC nations like Venezuela,” Walden said. “An all-of-the-above energy policy includes putting Americans to work to develop the energy resources here at home so we can bring down the price at the pump and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”

Specifically, the legislation passed in the House of Representatives would:

· Require that each five-year offshore leasing plan include lease sales in the areas containing the greatest known oil and natural gas reserves. For the 2012-2017 plan being written by the Obama Administration, the areas with the greatest known reserves are specifically defined as those estimated to contain 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. At least 50 percent of those areas must be made available for leasing in the 2012-2017 plan. Currently, the administration’s 2012-2017 draft plan includes no new leasing and drilling, only possible future lease sales in the Gulf. The requirements to lease in these most prospective offshore areas reverses the Administration’s effective moratorium on opening new areas.

· A state’s Governor may request to opt-in to a five-year leasing plan and the Secretary of Interior will include a lease sale, or sales, of the state’s offshore area in the plan.

· Require the Secretary to establish a production goal when writing a five-year plan. The goal will be the specific amount of oil and natural gas production that is estimated to result from leases made under the plan. Establishes the production goal for the 2012-2017 plan being written by the Obama Administration at 3 million barrels of oil per day and 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day by 2027. This 2012-2027 time encompasses the fifteen year period of the five-year plan and resulting ten-year leases made under that plan. By comparison to today’s levels, this increase in oil equates to a tripling of current American offshore production and would reduce foreign imports by nearly one-third.

“This is an enormous day for Americans and peace-loving people all around the world to have Osama bin Laden finally taken out after nearly a decade from the time he perpetrated his terrible attack on the United States and innocent civilians here, as well as attacks elsewhere around the world.

“We owe a great debt of thanks to the men and women who wear our nation’s uniform, who in some cases have paid the ultimate price, and in other cases continue to serve, as well our men and women who serve in our intelligence agencies.

“Even though Osama bin Laden has been taken out, the threat continues and we have to remain vigilant wherever we are around the world to try and prevent further terrorist attacks.”

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXt-IilcwJQ