[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 86 (Tuesday, June 25, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3920-H3926]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     PROTECTING OUR NATIONAL PARKS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to spend a 
few minutes this evening with some of my colleagues discussing the 
situation that we face as Americans across the country prepare to enjoy 
the July 4 holiday. For many people, it is an opportunity not just to 
reflect on the Declaration of Independence, the patriotic history of 
our country, but it is also an opportunity for families to come 
together to use this opportunity to join for family recreation, to 
vacation; and it sort of marks the first serious week of heavy 
utilization of our outstanding national park system.
  These are an area that have proven to touch the hearts of many 
Americans. It dates back to the tenure of President Teddy Roosevelt, 
who was such an outstanding leader in terms of the park system and 
conservation; but sadly, Mr. Speaker, today more and more Americans as 
they turn to the park system are going to be looking at a state of our 
national parks and public lands that, frankly, is going to disappoint 
them. They are going to be assaulted in areas where there should not be 
allowed motorized vehicles.
  There are problems of poor air quality that plague these jewels of 
our national park system. Air quality is a problem in the Grand Canyon, 
in Yosemite, in Yellowstone.
  We have serious problems in terms of what has happened with the 
extraction of our country's mineral resources, where sadly our policies 
of today have not kept pace with the demands that have been placed upon 
them and what we now know about protection of the environment. Sadly, 
the Mining Act of 1872 continues on the books exactly, exactly as it 
was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant 130 years ago.
  During his Presidential campaign, George W. Bush spoke of protecting 
national parks as an ongoing responsibility and a shared commitment of 
the American people and their government.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. Speaker, I was one of the Americans who was cheered by these 
words by then Governor Bush because, frankly, although I disagreed with 
him about a number of his environmental policies and his stewardship in 
the State of Texas and while I was frankly dismayed as I saw the 
stewardship that occurred with the State park system in Texas, I was 
heartened by his words that were optimistic as far as what may occur 
with our national treasures.
  However, Mr. Speaker, I am sad to say that since President Bush has 
assumed office I do not think any objective observer would suggest that 
he has followed in the footsteps of Teddy Roosevelt, who President Bush 
called America's first environmental President.
  My colleagues and I are here today to talk about the various threats 
to the serenity and wildlife of our national parks and to look at the 
unfortunate record that has been developed by the administration, 
although it is not too late to reverse course, and on behalf of the 
American public, we hope that they will.
  The administration, as we speak, is moving to undo a national park 
service plan to phase out snowmobiles in Yellowstone in the Grand Teton 
National Parks, despite strong scientific evidence and overwhelming 
public support for a ban. This week, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will be 
introducing legislation to require as a matter of law the ban that was 
put in place by the Clinton Administration. I am proud that there are 
over 100 of us already in Congress who will be original co-sponsors of 
that legislation.
  The administration has yet to argue forcefully and provide in its 
budgets new money to address the maintenance backlog in the national 
parks system. We have seen the administration propose a rollback of the 
Clean Air Act provisions which will actually increase air pollution in 
national parks from nearby power plants; and the President has claimed 
that he does not want to create any new parks, although he did sign a 
bill, in fairness, in February to create the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home 
National Historic Site.
  Meanwhile, there are bills for a number of important park sites that 
are not moving forward; and in the 2003 budget, the President has in 
his proposal eliminated funding for the Urban Parks and Recreation 
Recovery Program, an unfortunate development which I am hopeful 
Congress will be able to step up and countermand.
  I am pleased to be joined this evening by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis), and I yield to the gentlewoman if she has some 
observations that she wishes to offer up at this point.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate this opportunity to have 
this special hour dedicated to our parks. Because as we go into our 
holiday season preparing for the 4th of July, there is going to be over 
60 million people that will visit our Nation's national parks; and 
national parks create a place for families to recreate, to enjoy each 
other, to enjoy natural resources and learn about the world around us. 
All of our parks to me are national treasures and I know to many 
people.
  Some of our most used parks are ones that I represent in my own 
district in the San Gabriel Valley in East Los Angeles out in 
California, and it is surprising, but the studies that I have seen 
regarding park space is despicable when it comes to low-income 
communities and where individuals do not

[[Page H3921]]

have the opportunity to have open space. In fact, according to a study 
by the University of California Sustainable Cities Program, three to 
four acres of open space or green space are needed per 1,000 people to 
be considered a healthy environment. But in my own district in Los 
Angeles, there is less than a half acre per 1,000 people. Imagine that. 
Packed in like sardines.
  Communities like mine are in need of park opportunities, and they are 
waiting for this release now. In the 2003 budget, the President has 
eliminated funding for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program, 
a program that provides $29 million annually to urban communities to 
preserve park land and develop recreational opportunities in their 
communities. Oddly enough, this administration recently touted the 
urban park grants for 2002 as one of their accomplishments, despite 
their intention to defund it.
  The President claims that it is time to tighten our financial belts 
and merely maintain parks that we have now. The administration says 
they do not want to add any new parks, but, in fact, as my colleague, 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), said, back in February 
President Bush signed a bill creating the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home 
National Historic Site. Meanwhile, other bills are lingering in 
committee waiting to be heard.
  I happen to have a bill that is waiting to be heard. It is H.R. 2966; 
and it would create a study to find out if we could create a national 
park for Cesar Chavez, a leading figure in the Latino community who 
fought on behalf of farm workers, fought against the use of pesticides 
for farm workers, and looking for equal justice for all people, for all 
workers. Would it not be wonderful to have the first national park to 
recognize a Latino leader in the United States?

  I ask that question because it is time. Our communities are diverse, 
and it turns out that recent polling that I have seen indicates that 
the Latino community or Hispanic community is indeed in favor of open 
space and open parks and more space so that they can have the ability 
to recreate. And what is happening? We are going in the opposite 
direction. We are not doing enough to diversify and even allow for 
urban parks to be established.
  I have another bill that will be heard shortly in the Committee on 
Resources to establish, hopefully, a study for one of the largest urban 
parks in California. Currently, a state conservancy exists in our 
community known as the River Mountain Conservancy where over 7 million 
people live alongside this river that covers over 31 miles.
  I would hope that the administration and our colleagues on the other 
side will work with us in a bipartisan manner so that more funding will 
go into parks and recreation. Our communities need it, urban America 
needs it, and the diversity of our country desires that.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's strong 
voice for a balanced approach to parks and recreation and making sure 
that it meets the needs of all our citizens.
  I think the gentlewoman touched on an important point, because we 
have so many people who have limited opportunities for travel. There 
are people for whom, even if they have opportunities to travel, the 
day-to-day existence needs to be softened by opportunities for urban 
park and recreation programs.
  I look forward to working with the gentlewoman on her legislation and 
appreciate her strong voice for making sure Congress has a broad view 
of that responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, we have also been joined this evening by the gentleman 
from the State of Washington (Mr. Inslee), who, among other things, is 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health of 
the Committee on Resources, a person who has been a strong champion in 
the Pacific Northwest for issues that relate to livability.
  I have had the opportunity of watching him in action in the Arctic 
wilderness a year ago, surveying and listening to his observations 
about the issues that would deal with drilling in the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge, and I appreciate his strong environmental voice of leadership 
not just in the Pacific Northwest but around the country. So I am happy 
to yield to the gentleman to join in this discussion this evening.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much. I am glad the 
gentleman has brought us together to talk about these issues.
  I want to add two messages to talk about our incredible public lands 
that we have in this country that we ought to think about. The first is 
the area in our Forest Service lands, which is such a treasure. People 
all around the world come to see our forest areas, but they run a risk 
now because the Bush administration has threatened to essentially 
reduce the protections for our Forest Service lands and our pristine 
unroaded, uncut forests.
  I wanted to alert people to the potential of protecting these 
pristine forests and ask my colleagues to join us as cosponsors in the 
Roadless Area Conservation Act, which the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert), a Republican, and myself are prime sponsors of. We now have 
175 cosponsors. The reason this act is so important is that it would 
codify the existing area, roadless area rule, a rule that was adopted 
with the positive comments of over 1.2 million Americans who basically 
asked the Federal Government to protect the parts of the United States 
forest areas that have not been subject to having roads built on them 
yet. We think this is a very common-sense approach, because Americans 
value their pristine unroaded areas in our U.S. Forest Service lands.
  What this bill would do is essentially just put into law the rule 
that was previously adopted under the previous administration that 
would protect the areas in our Forest Service that have been designated 
as unroaded areas.
  The reason this is so important, and a lot of people think just from 
an environmental perspective, of protecting our unroaded areas from an 
environmental perspective, but it is important for a fiscal reason as 
well. That is because we already have 350,000 miles of roads that Uncle 
Sam has built in our Forest Service areas. Those roads, many of them, 
are now falling apart. They are literally washing out into streambeds 
and contaminating the gravels and ruining the fish habitat in our 
streams.

  In fact, we have an $8 billion backlog, an $8 billion backlog of 
maintenance needs on our existing 350,000 miles of roads in our Forest 
Service lands. So we think it makes a lot of sense to use maintenance 
money in the Forest Service to maintain what we have of these roads, 
because we have this epidemic of roads that are washing out. So we 
think we should protect what we have before we go punch new roads into 
unroaded areas.
  From an environmental perspective, Americans have spoken. When this 
rule was under consideration in the previous administration, we had the 
largest outpouring of citizen input of any rule under any agency in 
American history. In over 600 public meetings, 1.2 million Americans 
gave their input that said they want a strong roadless area rule. They 
want to protect the roads we already have and not build additional ones 
in our roaded areas. If my colleagues can show a bigger outpouring of 
public support for anything, I have not seen it in this country.
  The difficulty now is that the administration, even though the 
Attorney General of the United States during his confirmation was asked 
by the U.S. Senate whether he would preserve and protect and defend 
this rule and he said he would do so, unfortunately, he has not done 
so. And in litigation in an Idaho court, the best thing we could 
charitably say is that the U.S. Attorney took a dive and did not defend 
this rule and let the court run over the rule.
  The administration has now made threats to try to impinge on the 
rule, to cut it down in various ways and has refused to honor the rule.
  So we need to act in the U.S. House. We need to pass a law, we need 
to codify this, and we hope that more colleagues will join us. We hope 
the majority party allows a vote on this bill, because we think the 
majority of the House will support this bill. A very important issue.
  Second issue, if I can, and this is a big issue, one for, I suppose, 
several hours discussion, but I think it is important to talk about. 
When we think about our national parks and our national forest lands, 
they are under the threat of an invisible foe right now. There is an 
invisible threat to our national parks, and that is the threat of 
global warming.
  Our park system today runs the risk of very significant changes as a 
result of unchecked global warming. We can already see changes in our 
national

[[Page H3922]]

parks today of this phenomena which is occurring. As we know, 8 of the 
last 10 years we have had the hottest years in the last thousand years, 
and as a result of this trend we are already seeing changes in our 
national forests and our national parks.
  In Glacier National Park, glaciers are melting dramatically. Scores 
of glaciers are on the cusp of disappearing. If this trend continues, 
which it will unless we change some of our national policies, someday 
it will be the park formerly known as Glacier. Maybe we will name it 
after presidents who did nothing about global warming. It is one way to 
get a national park named after you, I suppose, but that would not be 
the direction we want to go.
  In Denali National Park, I was there last summer while looking at the 
Arctic Refuge, I talked to forest rangers who has been working there 
for about 20 years and who had seen the tree line move north several 
miles just during their very brief tenure. What is happening is that 
the types of trees that we have, the vegetation, is essentially moving 
because the atmosphere and the environment is changing.
  The Alpine meadows that we now enjoy in the Rocky Mountains, and I 
know John Denver could sing Rocky Mountain High, but those Alpine 
meadows may not be there in 100 years because the environment is 
changing enough that the biosphere changes and then there is no more 
mountain left to go to once we reach certain elevations.

                              {time}  1845

  So the fact is that we, because of our lack of an energy policy, are 
causing significant changes to our national parks. We can see it right 
in our homes, and today with the sweltering heat in D.C., it should be 
obvious, but over the long term, we are changing the substantive 
environment of our park system in a way that perhaps we do not fully 
understand.
  I would like to note, too, that the administration issued a report. 
We had a debate for some period of time about whether global warming 
was taking place and if it was, were humans causing it. Well, that 
debate is done. The Bush administration issued a report a week ago 
which was the cumulation of scientific knowledge from various Federal 
agencies, and they concluded several things. President Bush's White 
House issued a report saying global warming is occurring, and this is 
an accepted global fact.
  Number two, a significant portion of that is caused by human conduct. 
But despite the fact that the administration of the President of the 
United States concluded that global warming is occurring and humans are 
responsible for it, the President's response was just get used to it 
because I am not going to deal with the problem.
  As a Member who feels strongly about the national parks, that is not 
an acceptable position because what the President said was, I am not 
going to act as a result of this report. That is unacceptable to the 
American people. It should be unacceptable because our national logo, 
if you will, is the eagle, not the ostrich. This ostrich approach by 
the President of the United States is not going to solve this problem. 
We need leadership from the President of the United States, which he is 
capable of providing. He has provided the country leadership in the war 
against terrorism, and we need the President to provide leadership on 
the war against global warming.
  His response to date has been a volunteer program. He will ask major 
corporations in America to volunteer to reduce their emissions. Well, 
voluntary programs may work for PTA bake sales, but they are not going 
to work to change the course of global warming on this planet. We are 
urging the President to become engaged in dealing with this issue. It 
is vital that he do so, and it is vital for us in Congress to take 
steps as well, first by adopting a meaningful United States energy 
policy which is important not only for environmental concerns but for 
our security concerns so we do not have to remain addicted to whatever 
the political situation is in Saudi Arabia. We are hopeful the energy 
conferees will adopt a plan to move us toward a more sustainable energy 
policy to reduce our dependence on Saudi Arabia and whatever peculiar 
politics are happening there.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 
this opportunity to talk about two very important issues, adoption of 
the roadless area bill so we can protect our pristine areas in the 
national forests, and this overarching problem of global warming which 
is going to significantly reduce the character of our national forests 
and our national parks if we do not act. I thank the gentleman for this 
opportunity to add my two cents' worth on these issues.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as always, the gentleman's two cents are 
worth a great deal to us. I thank the gentleman for putting in context, 
as we watch some of the most massive forest fires raging across four 
States now, one thinks of the consequences of continued global climate 
change, tinderbox forest lands, the problems that we can face across 
the country with wild fires, forest fires, that we could be involved in 
a vicious cycle; and I think the gentleman's message is a timely one 
this evening.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
the report that I made reference to from the White House specifically 
said that a likely result of global warming are these prolonged drought 
conditions in the western United States, and what we are seeing now is 
what we can expect to see in the future in spades.
  To comment on the fires, some Members who are not of an environmental 
lilt have tried to blame these fires on environmental laws and people 
who care about the environment who enforce environmental laws. That is 
really, to be charitable, poppycock about this issue.
  We had the chief of the forest service, Mr. Bosworth, before the 
Committee on Resources; and some Members on the other side of the aisle 
were arguing that the reason Colorado was on fire was because an 
environmental group had filed an appeal of a proposal to do logging in 
a relatively small area, and they were arguing that was the reason that 
these fires had been cataclysmic. I asked Mr. Bosworth is that the 
reason these fires have become so huge. And he said no, there is no way 
that that caused these fires. He said these projects, some of which we 
do need to do to reduce the fuel load that has built up over decades, 
some of these projects we need to do; but those projects are going to 
take 10 years. There was an appeal that delayed a project 5 months and 
the chief, Mr. Bosworth, a Bush appointee, said those delays were not, 
repeat, not the reason for the fires in Colorado. The other thing is 
this is such a tiny measure, something like only 300,000 acres. It is 
the drought conditions which are so dangerous.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that we had some of 
the people when we had the horrible cycle of fires that the gentleman 
and I are aware of in the Pacific Northwest, we heard the same drum 
beat; that somehow this was the problem, that we did not aggressively 
log the forest. My recollection is that during that period of time the 
forests that had the greatest loss were the ones that were the more 
intensely logged.
  Mr. INSLEE. Because of drought and dryness conditions, it is going to 
burn through anything even if you have done preventive thinning in 
these extremely dry forests. The sad fact is, yes, there is some work 
that we can do to remove fuel loads in some of these forests; but when 
they are this dry, they are going to burn. Yes, Democrats and 
Republicans for decades suppressed fires so much that we allowed fuel 
to build up. But if they are going to be this dry for the next 200 
years, we are not going to have national forests if we do not do 
something about global warming. The White House has the study, and we 
just need for them to act.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's leadership 
on this set of issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I am touched by the range of issues that are involved 
here in terms of the protection of our public lands. I appreciate what 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) was talking about. The 
gentleman referenced the roadless area rule in the Pacific Northwest. I 
think it is important to note that we had so many of these roads that 
are not properly maintained that are actually posing a threat to 
habitat. I like the philosophy

[[Page H3923]]

of being able to take advantage of the opportunity to manage what we 
have. It is very, very important to move forward with the codification 
of these measures. I am proud to join the gentleman in the 
cosponsorship of his legislation that would put into law the protection 
for those roadless areas.
  A moment ago we had our colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt), on the floor; but, unfortunately, the gentleman had a commitment 
and we were unable to recognize him in a timely fashion. But he is 
moving forward to introduce his Yellowstone-specific legislation this 
Thursday that I mentioned earlier. It is particularly timely that the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) moves forward because earlier 
today officials from the National Park Service announced that they were 
going to overrule the January 2001 rule that phased out snowmobile use 
in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks.

  While many of the specifics of their new rule are not known, the park 
service officials indicated that their preferred alternative will be a 
combination of the alternatives that appeared in the supplemental 
environmental impact statement, the SEIS, issued last March, a 
combination of alternative of two and three. What is known is that it 
will force snowmobile use in this environmentally sensitive area.
  It will mean increased use and significant impacts on the park and 
wildlife. It could allow for increased number of snowmobiles in the 
park while also opening up additional miles for trail use. Under this 
plan, it is likely that the Clean Air Act and other National Park 
Service air-quality regulations will be violated. It is clear there 
will be an increase in health risks to the public and the employees 
over the original rule which would have banned snowmobiles.
  I find a certain irony with today's rollback that will jeopardize the 
environmental integrity of Yellowstone National Park, ignoring as it 
does science, law, and public opinion. I am pleased that the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), 
and over 100 of us who are already cosponsoring this legislation are 
going to fight it.
  I find no small amount of irony that the President in his campaign 
for office referred to the national parks as ``silent places, unworn by 
man.'' Yet the President seems determined to allow man to wear down 
these lands with loud and damaging vehicles.
  I was impressed under the previous administration with the leadership 
of the superintendent of Yellowstone Park, Michael Finley, where the 
National Park Service opposed a phase-out of snowmobiles in Yellowstone 
and the Grand Teton National Park. They made this decision following 13 
years of scientific study and 3 years of nationwide public comment. Let 
me repeat that. Thirteen years of study.
  I had several meetings with Superintendent Finley, and I must say 
with a little bit of chauvinistic pride as an Oregonian, he revealed to 
me that over 80 percent of the public comments that were received in 
the process of this rule were in favor of banning snowmobiles.
  Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency joined in this effort 
recommending the banning of snowmobiles because of the carbon monoxide 
emissions which were threatening the health of not only the park's 
ecosystem but, candidly, it was a risk to the health of the park 
employees. Yet the Bush administration has decided to undercut the 
National Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and ignore 
the American public.

                              {time}  1900

  I hope that it is not too late for this Congress to step forward, to 
listen to the science, the will of the American public and legislate a 
ban on these vehicles in Yellowstone and the Grand Teton National 
Parks.
  It is, Mr. Speaker, an amazing volume of activity. This is not just 
an occasional recreational vehicle user going through an otherwise 
pristine environment. We are talking about 80,000 people using 
snowmobiles; and they are producing, in one of the ecological treasures 
of this country, more air pollution each year than all the cars and the 
trucks that carry 3 million other visitors into the park. Think about 
it for a moment. By overturning this phaseout, it has the effect of 
doubling the air pollution from the 3 million visitors. It is like 
having that population double to 6 million.
  We have found, Mr. Speaker, that the pollution from the snowmobiles 
impairs the visibility in the park. It contributes to pollution levels 
that are higher than allowed in a national park, and these are 
violations of the Clean Air Act. The noise from the snowmobiles is 
audible as much as 95 percent of the time in popular sites, interfering 
with the enjoyment of other visitors.
  But it is not just the human visitors that are harassed, because 
these 80,000 visitors regularly harass wildlife. They are chasing bison 
back and forth between the roadside snow banks, forcing them to expend 
energy they need to make it through the harsh winter conditions.
  Based on the science, the Park Service concluded that snowmobile use 
is impairing the resources in the parks in violation of the Organic 
Act's mandate that the Service-managed parks, to leave them unimpaired 
for the enjoyment of future generations.
  The Service also found that the snowmobile use is inconsistent with 
the requirements of the Clean Air Act, Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 
by Presidents Nixon and Carter relating to offroad vehicle use in 
public lands, that the National Park Service general snowmobile 
regulations and management objectives for the park are also violated.
  All these requirements are based on long-standing bipartisan 
commitment for our national parks be given the highest standard in 
applying the highest level of protection. The strictest and most 
detailed government standards applying to snowmobile use in the parks 
were adopted by President Nixon and during the Reagan administrations. 
The irony is that this important environmental work, bipartisan in 
nature, strong congressional input, would be thrown out the window by a 
President who claimed during his campaign to be a friend of the 
National Park Service.
  Mr. Speaker, I have more material that I wish to offer up and that 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) would have done in my stead, 
but I notice that we have been joined this evening by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a gentleman who has been tireless in his 
support of these national treasures, a gentleman who I am pleased to 
note serves on the critical Interior Subcommittee of Appropriations 
where he has spent a huge amount of time visiting these resources, 
fighting in Congress and with the general public. I am honored that he 
is here this evening and would see if he would like to enter into this 
discussion.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me the 
opportunity to enter into this discussion.
  I was particularly interested in his remarks a few moments ago about 
the Nation's national parks. These national parks were set aside 
initially under the administration of Theodore Roosevelt, that is when 
they first began, a very respected Republican President who was one of 
the most environmentally sensitive and far-seeing Presidents in our 
history. It is unfortunate that this present administration, another 
Republican President, has sought to degrade the national parks in the 
ways in which we have just heard.
  One of the most serious elements of that degradation has to do with 
air quality. The national parks were set aside initially in the first 
instance during the administration of Theodore Roosevelt; and when he 
initiated the first national parks, he talked about the need for 
Americans, for people, to have a quiet place, a place where they could 
go and be in touch with the natural elements and get back to a sense of 
real nature, a place that is pristine, quiet, a place for reflection 
and a place for us to understand our own relationships with the natural 
world. That was really the foundation for the national parks.
  I am paraphrasing the words of President Theodore Roosevelt, but that 
was one of the essential aspects of the message that he laid out when 
he first began to form our series of national parks.
  Under this administration, the degradation of air quality and also 
the proliferation of noise as a result of the extraordinary use of 
snowmobiles in the winter months is causing serious harm to the 
national parks themselves

[[Page H3924]]

and, of course, to the natural setting and is absolutely destroying the 
sense of quiet, the sense where people can go to get a deeper 
understanding of the natural world and of themselves. And, of course, 
the effect on air quality by these snowmobiles is such that the air 
quality on the western end of Yellowstone, for example, at times is 
worse than it is, and this is frequently occurring, at frequent times, 
in major urban areas as a result of the burning of the fossil fuels to 
propel the snowmobiles.

  Of course, the parks are there for everyone. We all want an 
opportunity to enjoy them, and they are there for recreational use. But 
there needs to be a realization that one particular aspect of use 
cannot destroy the joy and the experience that other people have who 
want to use the national parks in other ways, for hiking, for cross-
country skiing, things of that nature. So I am very distressed, along 
with everyone who has a deep care about our national treasures, 
Yellowstone, Yosemite, the other wonderful national parks that make up 
this unique array of park systems in our country and how it is being 
degraded and in some sense actually destroyed by the unlimited use of 
snowmobiles.
  I also noticed that earlier there was a discussion with regard to 
clean air. It also ought to be brought to people's attention how the 
administration's proposal, in effect gutting serious elements of the 
Clean Air Act, is having on air quality in many places around the 
country, not just on national parks but all across the country. The 
Clean Air Act has been one of the most effective tools to provide a 
cleaner and healthier environment for all Americans that we have seen 
in the history of the country. Over the course of now more than 30 
years, since 1970, the effect of the Clean Air Act has been to reduce 
air pollution on average across the country by about 30 percent. That 
effect will continue. Except that the administration now has said that 
they are going to remove an important part of the Clean Air Act, known 
as new source review.
  I think that everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, that a major source of air 
pollution in this country is the generation of electricity through the 
burning of fossil fuels and the fact that when the Clean Air Act went 
into effect, many of these old power plants were, in effect, 
grandfathered. In other words, they did not have to put on the modern 
cleaning technology which scrubs out the pollutants before they get 
into the air.
  But a provision of the Clean Air Act stipulated that whenever the 
owner of one of these power plants upgraded the plant in some way to 
increase the amount of electricity that was being produced or in some 
other significant way to gain some economic benefit, additional 
economic benefit from the plant, that at that point new source review 
kicks in and that the owner of the power plant would then have to 
install equipment to clean the air coming out of those plants. The 
administration is now eliminating new source review through the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  That is going to have a debilitating effect on air quality in many 
places around the country but especially in the Northeast. In New York, 
for example, where the Adirondack Mountains suffer from the pollutants 
that come from these power plants in the form of acid precipitation, 
acid rain, snow, sleet, hail that falls on the growth in these 
mountains and also on the lakes, the effect of that has been to 
completely eliminate all life forms in more than 300 lakes and ponds in 
the Adirondack Mountains of New York. A similar effect is being 
experienced in Vermont, in New Hampshire, Maine and other places.
  So the effectiveness of the Clean Air Act, which has been an 
enormously successful instrument to provide a cleaner, healthier 
environment for Americans, is being subverted by this administration by 
the elimination of this provision known as new source review.

  This is important not just from an aesthetic point of view, not just 
from the point of view of all of us, I believe all of us who appreciate 
the quality of a natural environment, to go into a wooded area, to 
climb a mountain, to go into some back country and breathe the clean 
air, not only that loss and the loss of the life forms in those more 
than 300 lakes and ponds in the Adirondacks and similarly in other 
States, but by gutting the Clean Air Act in this way, by eliminating 
new source review, by putting more pollutants into the atmosphere, it 
also degrades the quality of our lives in a very material way. We will 
see increased incidence of asthma and other lung ailments as a result 
of the poor quality of air. It is, in fact, a genuine and real health 
problem.
  For all of these reasons, we are deeply concerned about the attitude 
that has been expressed by the majority of the Members in this House, 
particularly over the course of the last several years that they have 
been in the majority, and also the attitude that is apparently being 
expressed by the administration recently in removing new source review 
from the Clean Air Act and thereby causing substantial additional 
pollutants to go into the air and also by degrading the national parks 
by the unlimited, unregulated use of snowmobiles in those national 
parks.
  I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for setting aside 
this time for us, Mr. Speaker, so that we could have the opportunity to 
discuss in some detail these important environmental issues which are 
also important public health issues.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman joining us and rounding 
out the discussion to take on the dimensions of public health.
  He made an observation that I thought was important, and I would like 
to pursue one slight distinction. I, too, have been concerned that our 
Republican colleagues in the leadership have been pursuing an 
environmental agenda that I think is very much out of sync with what is 
practiced by most of the American public, the views and attitudes. But 
the irony is that their limited approach in cutting off debate and not 
allowing a full range of options to be discussed, actually, they have 
denied a majority of the House an opportunity to be heard and move 
important protective legislation forward. I think it is sad, because I 
know that there are some of our friends on the other side of the aisle 
who feel uncomfortable with these environmental initiatives.
  There is a majority of the House, when we get clean votes for air 
quality, when we get clean votes for clean water, more often than not 
the majority will of the House is such that it is in keeping with what 
the majority will of the American public is in terms of its 
environmental ethic. But, sadly, we are not permitted to have these 
straight up or down votes and this full and honest debate.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Of course, what the gentleman from Oregon is pointing 
out here is an undermining, even an abrogation of the basic democratic 
system under which this Congress is supposed to function. This Congress 
is set up as a place where the issues that are of most importance and 
of deepest concern to the American people can be debated freely and 
openly.

                              {time}  1915

  Certainly, this environmental issue in all of its aspects, its 
aesthetic aspects, its environmental quality aspects, its public health 
aspects, is an issue that ought to be debated fully. We ought not to be 
here in the evening, during the period of Special Orders, although it 
is a good thing to do, we really ought to have the opportunity to 
exchange these views with Members on the other side of the aisle, the 
Republican Party who is in charge of this House and sets the rules in 
this House. We ought to be able to engage them in substantive debate on 
these issues so that people can see the differences that exist between 
them and us, and so that they can then make a decision as to what kind 
of representation they want.
  The gentleman reminding us of the way in which basic democratic 
principles have been undermined here and the way the House is governed 
also points out to me the fact that the most important vote that we 
cast here at the beginning of each Congress every 2 years is the vote 
that establish the leadership of the House, because it is the 
leadership of the House that determines the agenda of the House and 
determines the way in which this House of Representatives is not just 
organized, but the way it conducts its business day in and day out. It 
is supposed to be done in an orderly and progressive way; but 
unfortunately, we have not seen that to be the rule here over the 
course of the last several years.

[[Page H3925]]

  So it would be much better if we had an opportunity to discuss the 
environmental issue, just as it would be much better if we had the 
opportunity to discuss the energy issue, which I know the gentleman 
touched on earlier this evening and the fact that our energy policy is 
one that is devoted almost entirely, almost exclusively, to 
exploitation of natural resources, and the burning of fossil fuels, 
rather than focusing, in part, on significant energy conservation and 
the production of energy through alternative means that are 
nonpolluting.
  That debate is one that we ought to have as well, because I believe 
the American people want us to develop an energy policy which is 
multifaceted, which is broad-based, which conserves our natural 
resources, and which improves the quality of the environment just as 
they want us to have an open and full environmental debate on these 
issues as well.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I 
come from a background, Mr. Speaker, in a State where there are 
nominally partisan politics; but when I got started in the political 
process, the issues of protecting the environmental heritage of the 
State of Oregon was something that Republicans and Democrats could 
often come together on. There was a great Republican environmental 
leader, Tom McCall, that actually gave me my very first governmental 
assignment when I was still a college student to be on Oregon's livable 
community, it was a livable community commission. I worked with some 
key Republicans when we were doing legislative protections of the 
environment when I was a State legislator in the 1970s.
  The protection of our environmental heritage should not be partisan, 
and I am sorry that it has reached that point today. It is interesting, 
however, that the men and women who run for national office and 
increasingly, even on the State level, embrace the rhetoric of 
environmental protection, hence some of the quotations that I gave 
earlier this evening from candidate Governor Bush when he was running 
and how he was going to respect and honor the environment.
  It is interesting that through the manipulation of the political 
process that there are acts that are undertaken, criticism of the last 
administration, for example, for using the antiquities act to protect 
some great national monuments in this country. But now, all of the 
smoke and fury has subsided. There is a Republican in the White House, 
there is a Republican leadership, but are they introducing leadership 
to repeal President Clinton's monument designations? No. There is not a 
single bill that is coming forward to repeal them. Instead, what we see 
is that there is actually legislation that some of our Republican 
colleagues are proposing that would tie the hands of President Bush and 
future Presidents to designate monuments as sort of I guess a signal to 
some of their antienvironmental supporters, but not stepping forth to 
try and roll anything back because we know the American public will not 
stand for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I think our challenge here is to make sure that the 
American public understands what is happening with the rollback that we 
talked about earlier in terms of the rule that would have phased out 
the use of snowmobiles, that we are having the Padre Island National 
Seashore, Gulf Shore Islands National Seashore, Cape Lookout National 
Seashore where there was a national park superintendent of those areas 
had proposed that there be a ban on jet ski use in those waters. But 
now, these proposed bans which had broad public support and to deal 
with the massive environmental damage, it is not just the noise of the 
jet skis. Most of these, for 4 gallons of gasoline that is burned, one 
goes into the water.

  Well, now the administration and some of our Republican House Members 
are pressuring the National Park Service to override the 
superintendents. Now these parks must do a new environmental assessment 
and rulemaking to allow jet ski use to continue, despite the 
environmental damage, despite the public opposition. It is unfortunate 
that we are seeing example after example.
  The gentleman referenced the situation of the National Park Service 
and our illustrious President Teddy Roosevelt. It is frustrating to see 
the actual purpose, the Organic Act, under which the National Park 
Service was organized that called for the conservation of scenery, the 
natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein, and to provide 
for the enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as 
will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations, the 
enjoyment of future generations. Nothing, nothing could be further from 
obtaining, enforcing, celebrating the requirement of that original act 
and what we see is being infested upon the American public as we speak.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I am sure if Teddy Roosevelt were President 
today, the approach to environmental issues would be much different. It 
is really a shame in a way, because we have had a number of Republican 
Presidents who developed and nurtured very sound policies with regard 
to the environment. If they were in office today, one of the first 
things that they would turn their attention to is probably the most 
serious environmental problem of all, most serious because it is global 
in nature, most serious because it has the potential to alter the 
environment in very basic and fundamental ways all around the Earth, 
and we are seeing the effects of that already.
  What I am speaking of, of course, is the phenomenon of global warming 
and the fact that so much of the warming that we have been experiencing 
in recent decades comes about as a result of the activities of our 
species on this planet, and it is the burning of fossil fuels and the 
placing in the atmosphere of these gases, particularly carbon dioxide.
  Last year was the second warmest year on record. Two years earlier, 
it was the warmest year on record. The decade of the 1990s was the 
warmest decade on record. The one before that was the decade of the 
1980s. I mean it does not take a genius to see what is going on here. 
Not long ago, a part of the Arctic ice cap, the Antarctic Ice Sheet, in 
fact, dropped off, a size of the State of Rhode Island. That came about 
as a result of rising temperatures and the melting of the ice.

  There was an amazing story on the front page of the New York Times 
just about a week ago which talked about the effect of global warming 
in Alaska, how in one situation, an island which had been inhabited for 
a long, long time, I do not think anyone knows precisely how long, but 
very, very long, as being inundated because of the fact that the polar 
ice caps are melting and the sea level around the world is rising. An 
island such as this one in Alaska is being inundated and people are 
going to have to move off of that island to live somewhere else. Roads 
are buckling because of the warming in Alaska. That is happening 
because the permafrost is no longer perma.
  In other words, it is no longer permanent. The frost there is 
melting; and as a result of that, we are getting heaves of the Earth 
and the roads are buckling as a consequence of that. I think it was 
spoken of earlier that global warming is, in some measure, causing the 
dryness that is contributing to the fires that we are seeing around the 
country, and it is also contributing to the changes in weather patterns 
that we are experiencing, drier climates in some areas, and a whole 
host of things that are becoming more and more evident with each 
passing day, each passing week, month and year.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to do something about it. We need to focus our 
attention on it. Every other industrial country in the world is taking 
a responsible position on global warming, cutting back their emissions. 
This administration has decided to turn its back on the issue, and I 
can remember it was just a few years ago when in debating an Interior 
Appropriations, Republican members of that committee wanted to strike 
from the bill the phrase ``global warming'' because they contended that 
it did not exist, that it was fanciful and there was no point in having 
such a phrase in legislation because they contended it was a complete 
fix.
  Mr. Speaker, it is shocking that this level of ignorance exists, but 
there it is for everyone to see. This is a problem that we need to pay 
attention to.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman taking us

[[Page H3926]]

back into the global scope of things. I would just conclude by turning 
our attention back to where we began this evening in terms of the 
public lands and the President's promise when he was candidate Governor 
Bush to deal with improving the stewardship. Not only are they rolling 
back protections for motorized vehicles, dealing with just the nuts and 
bolts that the gentleman from New York is going to have to deal with on 
the Interior committee in terms of the budget where we are going to 
eliminate a $5 billion budget cap. This year I note that the gentleman 
has been given a Presidential appropriation request, $2 million above 
last year's enactment.

                          ____________________