[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 106 (Thursday, July 17, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7087-H7105]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H7087]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
House of Representatives
{time} 2100
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2004--Continued
Mr. INSLEE. In the second regulation, specifically roads built to
maintain and restore characteristics of composition and structure such
as to reduce the risk of end characteristic wildfire effects.
The truth is, the roadless area rule allows building roads to deal
with threat of fire of too much brush.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. The courts have already held that that language does
not allow the intervention unless there is effectively a fire already
taking place. If you want to actually prevent a fire from occurring,
that language is not effective.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the
highest court in the land to have dealt with the roadless area rule,
affirmed the roadless area rule. It is true that a lower court in
Wyoming, a State perhaps not known for great environmental policy,
ruled contrary. But the highest court in the land affirmed the roadless
area rule. It is the law of the United States.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 seconds to the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Because the gentleman referred to the 9th
Circuit, it was overturned, because that is a bunch of liberal left-
wingers anyway. It was overturned because they were wrong. Everybody
knows that.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
To the gentleman from Florida, kindly let me just note that there are
no commercial logging programs in our parks as you refer to them. We
are talking about national forestland, Bureau of Land management land.
And I will tell you 3 years ago President Clinton helicoptered to my
district, got in a car, drove up a road into our national forests and
at the top of Reddish Knob signed with one stroke of the pen a very
irresponsible, environmentally irresponsible policy that wiped out
billions of dollars and millions of hours of local input into the
proper management of our forests lands. That is what this does.
Forests grow. Their character changes. There are places today that
have roads that in the future may not need roads, but there are also
places in the roadless areas that from time to time will need roads in
order to prevent forest fires, to protect wildlife, to do all of the
various things that are necessary. This one stroke of the pen is
irresponsible public policy not only for the local communities that are
devastated by it but also for the environmental soundness of our
national forests because they change. The fuel density builds up, and
you need to go in and thin out various parts of our forests.
Areas that are roadless now, many of them could stay roadless for a
long time, but some are in need of having roads. There are places where
there are roads where those roads will not be needed in the future. But
to take with one stroke of the pen all of that local planning in all of
our national forests and wipe it out makes no sense at all. It is
shocking that anyone would consider consigning more than one-third of
the national forest system to a passive, hope-for-the-best style of
management only 1 year after one of the most devastating wildfire
seasons of the last half century.
Two federal district courts have examined the roadless rule and found
that it was adopted in flagrant violation of basic environmental law,
the laws of this country.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) would like to have
Congress intervene and force the administration to ignore these court
findings. That will leave us with the old situation. Because this rule
that President Clinton put forward is flawed, and the courts are going
to find it so.
The Federal District Court in Idaho called the roadless rule an
obvious violation of the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Federal District Court in Wyoming ruled just this work that the
Forest Service's entire NEPA process was flawed and marred with
arbitrary and capricious decisions and that the administrative record
is replete with the Forest Service's own admission that its data was
incomplete, outdated and simply inaccurate.
Even the Clinton administration admitted that the final roadless rule
contained egregious errors. Over 3 million acres of roaded lands were
counted as part of the roadless land base. Almost a third of the units
of the National Forest System did not even bother mapping the non-
Federal lands in their roadless areas.
Preventing the Forest Service from amending this rule is an attempt
to circumvent the courts and freeze outdated policy in that is severely
flawed in both conception and execution. I urge my colleagues to oppose
strongly this amendment.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Washington
State (Mr. Inslee) has 14\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
[[Page H7088]]
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for his leadership in
safeguarding the Chugach and Tongass Forests.
I have visited the Tongass National Forest and was astounded at the
magnificence of this virtually untouched part of the country. Human
activity has not altered the face of this forest, which remains
pristine wildness. Vast tracks of old-growth forest provide critical
habitat for wolves, grizzly bears, wild salmon, and bald eagles.
The Chugach and Tongass comprise the largest intact temperate
rainforest in the country. These two forests act as the literal lungs
of the world, replenishing global oxygen stores and sequestering tons
of carbon dioxide, which would otherwise contribute to global warming.
So I was really disturbed to learn of the administration's intention
to roll back the roadless rule on 15 million acres of forest in the
Tongass and Chugach. The proposal detailed in the Federal Register on
July 15 would temporarily suspend the roadless rule in the Tongass
National Forest. In anticipation of the passage of this rule, timber
companies have already laid out 50 clear-cutting projects in roadless
areas in the Tongass. They must not be permitted to proceed.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. My good friend from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The timber companies do not lay out plans. It is
the Forest Service itself that lay out the plans.
And number two, there are no----
Mrs. LOWEY. Did I yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I heard you.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair will ask the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) if she
has yielded time to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
Mrs. LOWEY. I would prefer just finishing my time, and then I would
be delighted to yield, if I have any time, to this distinguished
chairman from whom I have learned a lot. But if I may complete the
statement, and I thank the distinguished chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman will proceed.
Mrs. LOWEY. I co-sponsored the Inslee legislation to codify the
roadless rule to provide permanent protection to the $58.5 million
acres of roadless area in our national forests system. The amendment
today would shield the roadless rule from the dangerous changes now
being proposed. It offers, in my judgment, a unique opportunity to
protect the 300,000 acres of threatened old-growth habit.
Mr. Chairman, I guess I do not have any time to yield.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I would just like to remind the good lady there
are no grizzly bears in southeast Alaska. There are brown bears but not
grizzly bears. And we should know a little bit about that after we
talked about baiting bears today. They are not grizzly bears. They are
brown bears. That means that you do not know, frankly, what you are
talking about.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I have respect for the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee), particularly when it comes to the area of
salmon fisheries. But I am also privileged to represent a district that
is 58,000 square miles of rural Arizona that contains the largest
ponderosa pine forest in America, one of the greatest creations in the
world.
We have no timber industry, none. The only thing that thins any trees
in Arizona is bark beetles. Millions of acres we are anticipating will
be infested by bark beetles. The exception that has been carved out and
shown to be today does not address the ability for us to go in and
prevent bark beetle infestation. We have to wait for an emergency to
incur. And yet bark beetle infestation does not qualify under your
emergency.
No jobs. We do not want to clear-cut in the timber industry. We want
a reasonable timber industry. Can you imagine have having that great
resource and not having a job left?
We have a football team in northern Arizona called the Lumberjacks.
Under your proposal we might as well call ourselves the Bark Beetles.
No ability to thin the forests, no ability to treat infestation.
Now, we hear the disparaging remarks about the Federal court in
Wyoming, a court that has come out many times in favor of environmental
rulings. Let me quote, ``In promulgating the roadless rule, the Forest
Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the
Wilderness Act. Moreover, the roadless rule as now enacted creates 58.5
million of de facto wildness.''
You talk about a public process, you talk about having time for
everybody to engage in the wildness debate, and yet what this amendment
really does is just establish 58.5 million acres of wildness area.
I disagree with the amendment. I ask for a reasonable timber industry
that does not clear-cut but allows us to go in and thin the forests.
Give us back our jobs, allow us to treat the infestation and allow us
to help prevent forest fires before they happen.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman New York
(Mr. Boehlert), who shares the views of almost 2 million Americans who
support the roadless rule.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that this amendment is
necessary, but it is. The administration has announced its intention to
propose a series of changes to the roadless rule that would
significantly reduce its scope and weaken its effectiveness. And it is
moving forward with these changes even though the Forests Roads Working
Group, a group of sportsmen's groups, has recommended leaving the rule
as it is for now.
So this amendment may be our last and only chance to save the
roadless rule, one of the most significant land protections measures in
recent decades. The roadless rule will protect watersheds, foster bio-
diversity and enable future generations to appreciate untrammeled
wildness.
Now that is not to say that there are not legitimate arguments
against the roadless rule. Members may oppose the roadless rule because
they believe these areas should be logged or because of economic
concerns or because of a philosophical objection to any limitation on
the use of our national forests. But we are not hearing those arguments
because they are not very popular and they do not have much emotional
appeal.
Instead, we are hearing arguments against the roadless rule that are,
in a word, bogus. We are hearing arguments that run directly counter to
the facts. We are hearing rhetoric that is literally incendiary, with
pictures to match. We are hearing Members shout ``fire'' in a crowded
legislative chamber.
This is a dangerous tact for the opponents of the Inslee amendment.
It is dangerous not only because it is misleading, it is also dangerous
because fire is a deadly, serious issue, and it should not be thrown
around for political convenience. That will make it harder to take the
real steps necessary to prevents wildfires, and those steps are already
difficult enough.
What are the actual facts about fire and the roadless rule? Here is
what the science tells us.
Wildfires are nearly twice as likely to occur in forests with roads
than in roadless areas, regardless of the cause of fire. Reducing the
number of roadless areas would increase the likelihood of wildfires.
Eighty-eight percent of forest fires are caused by people. Those
fires are four times as likely to occur in a forest with roads, more
evidence that reducing the number of roadless areas would increase the
likelihood of wildfires.
Roadless areas generally have not been logged and, therefore, are
less susceptible to catastrophic fire. The dense underbrush that
promote fire is most prevalent in areas that have been logged. That is
still more evidence.
When fires do occur in roadless areas, they are unlikely to endanger
human life or property because roadless areas are remote. Reducing the
number of roadless areas would increase the risk that fires would
result in the loss of life and property.
[[Page H7089]]
The roadless rule allows activities to reduce the threat of fire in
roadless areas such as clearing out smaller diameter or more fire-prone
trees. That is called thinning. It is allowed.
{time} 2115
It is allowed. The roadless rule provides an exemption allowing roads
to be built in roadless areas to fight forest fires. These are the
facts that ought to underline this debate. If my colleagues want road-
building in the most remote and pristine areas and stretches of our
national forests, then do not support the roadless rule, but do not
claim the opposition to the rule out of concern for risk of fire or the
environment. That just does not withstand scrutiny.
I urge my colleagues to support the Inslee amendment. It is sound
policy, and it will not increase the risk of fire.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for this amendment to
come up for 2 days now that we have been working on this bill.
We have talked a lot about environmental care, environmental laws,
our joint desire to do what is right for our environment; but I think
on this amendment my colleagues have the opportunity to see what one
extreme example is of an effort to manage our public lands, and that
extreme example is the philosophy or ideology that people should not be
on our public lands. The way to solve that is to gradually begin to
remove them, piece by piece, from our public lands.
What this amendment does is go back to a failed policy of the
previous administration. A lot has been said about the judge's ruling.
I would like to read one quote from the judge. In its rush to give
President Clinton lasting notoriety in the annals of environmentalism,
the Forest Service's shortcuts, and bypassing the procedural
requirements of NEPA, has done lasting damage to the very laws designed
to protect the environment. The Forest Service's entire NEPA process
was flawed and marred with arbitrary and capricious decisions that
resulted from its unreasonably self-imposed, unreasonably short
deadline for implementing the roadless rule.
The facts are this country has nearly 750 million acres of Federal
land. Almost half of that is currently under some kind of conservation
status, national park, wilderness, wildlife refuges. It is protected
forever for future generations. About half of it is for multiple use,
and that is what they are going after here is whatever is left they
want to take people out of it. They want to stop the ability for
multiple use on those lands. They want to stop the ability of people to
use them.
A compromise has been worked out over the years. What the current
administration is trying to do is to go back and fix what one Federal
judge has already said was a marred policy, a severely flawed policy
and trying to make it work in the roadless areas that we do still have.
I think it is important that my colleagues take the time to actually
understand what this amendment is truly all about and why the
administration has so strongly opposed it and why so many of my
colleagues are so excited about this passing. This is not a West versus
East amendment. This is something that we all need to pay attention to,
because the impact that this has on our public lands is immense and
has, quite frankly, already been thrown out by a Federal judge.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), former judge, who will explain about the court
of appeals upholding the roadless rule.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
the time to me.
I think it should be clear so that people do not get confused that
the rulings with regard to this particular legislation are rulings of
lower courts, district courts in the Federal court. The highest court,
which is the ninth circuit, is the court that has upheld the roadless
rule, and so we need to pay attention to that in terms of discussing
what courts have done.
The other thing, I find it interesting that my colleagues on the
Republican side of the aisle want to point to judges when the judges'
decisions are on their side, and then they want to beat up on judges
when the judges' decisions are on the other side.
I have had the fortunate opportunity to visit the Tongass Forest. I
have had the fortunate opportunity to discuss this issue with a number
of people in the area. One of the things that we do not seem to want to
talk about is the impact that clear-cutting has on the caves beneath
these beautiful mountains out there and the impact that it has on the
environment.
We are not talking about keeping people out of the forests. In fact,
we want to allow people to be in the forests. The thing that we are, in
fact, saying as we debate this issue this evening is that if we allowed
them in the forest, what is the purpose and how can we best
environmentally keep the forest sound.
I know there are a lot of other people who want to be heard.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
When this debate started, I was disappointed. We saw a picture up
here of a clear-cut, trying to inflame the American public. That clear-
cut picture had no reason to be in a roadless debate, has nothing to do
with it. It is another whole issue, but let us look at the Forest
Service.
The Forest Service has approximately 175 million acres. Over 75
percent of it is never considered for forestry or able for forestry.
That is 135 million acres. Of that that is practiced forestry, it is
less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the Forest Service land. If we
treated all the Forest Service land in that manner, it would take 1,000
years to treat the forests owned by the National Forest Service.
We used to cut 10 to 11 billion board feet of timber that is dying
and going to waste today. We now cut less than 2 billion board feet on
all the Forest Service land all over America, and I have one of those
forests in my district. I know what they are about.
What is roadless about? Roadless is peopleless. How many of my
colleagues have walked a mile from a road in a land they do not know?
How many of my colleagues have walked 5 miles from a road? A few, not
the majority of Americans.
I was up in an aircraft recently on the first day of buck season in
Pennsylvania, one of the heaviest hunted States. We seldom saw one of
those orange coats a mile from the road, and the aircraft pilot and I
talked about people in the Allegheny National Forest. They cannot kill
the deer because they cannot get the hunters back in those huge areas.
Roadless is peopleless.
Who uses roadless areas? Very few Americans. A few young hikers will
do it, routine. It is certainly no to seniors. It is no to most of the
young youth of America to go back in very far. In a mountainous area
like I live in, it is easy to get lost. Even hunters seldom go way back
in.
Roadless is ``no'' to treating disease. Roadless makes it almost
impossible to fight forest fires. It is ``no'' to the vast majority of
Americans to utilize and appreciate.
A speaker a moment ago said about appreciating. How can we appreciate
a 100,000-acre plot when there is no road in it? Think about it. A road
is not some destructive process. The vast majority of our public land
by this country, we own a third of the country, is not timbered. It is
not used for forestry. It is roadless. It is wilderness, it is
recreation, and a lot of it is just abandoned land because it is
roadless and people cannot use it.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hill).
(Mr. HILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to the
interior appropriations bill.
Much of the Hoosier National Forest back in Indiana is in my
congressional district. Many of my constituents enjoy hiking, horseback
riding, and all the other pleasures and natural beauty of the Hoosier
National Forest.
I have enjoyed the forest as well. I have visited there many times,
most
[[Page H7090]]
recently just in May; and while there, I spoke to many of the rangers
and forest employees tasked with protecting and overseeing the forest.
The rangers I spoke with indicated that opening roads could lead to
increased environmental degradation, including forest fires. Why?
Because of people. The employees at the forest were terribly concerned
with the possibility of forest fires, as many of them volunteer to go
out West to fight the country's largest forest fires.
By weakening the roadless rule, we will be increasing the likelihood
of forest fires in our national forests. There is natural disagreement
over the issue, and it will be undercutting forest protections
thoughtfully established over many years.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here
tonight. I feel a little bit, like in my previous profession, in the
middle of a major conflict here.
I appreciate the intent of the gentleman on his amendment, and I also
understand some of the legal arguments. I would like to just point out
a couple of things here that have not been mentioned heretofore.
One is that there are over 400,000 acres of private lands that are
currently blocked by the roadless rule. These are private landowners
who have no access to their land. The reason is, what happened
primarily was much of that forest that is affected by the roadless rule
was not mapped. Nobody knew when they designated it that there were
private lands in there. That is not right. That is a problem.
If my colleagues talk to the people who are in the field, the Forest
Service field managers, they say the roadless rule affects their
ability to maintain ecosystems, watersheds, protect species, and
protect human lives and property.
There has been quite a bit mentioned tonight about the fact that
there are fewer fires in roadless areas. Yet the largest fire in the
history of Colorado was the Hayman fire. That burned primarily through
roadless areas; and so when we do have a fire in a roadless area, there
is very little that we can do to slow it down.
So I think it makes sense. It is only logical that if the Forest
Service feels that they need more access and if firefighters say they
need more access and if landowners say that they need more access, that
we should listen to them. It is only logical, and so I certainly
support defeat of the amendment.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the remaining time.
The CHAIRMAN. Each side has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time and also for his leadership and support in offering this
amendment.
As an urban resident, let me just say that national forests are
really national property and belong as much to my constituents and to
me as to anyone else. The roadless rule was the most popular Federal
rule in history. Wiping it out is just downright wrong. Once this
wilderness is gone, we will never get it back.
Extending the roadless rule also means protecting clean drinking
water, preserving habitat and safeguarding recreational opportunities.
Preserving roadless areas also helps prevent incredibly damaging forest
fires that we have witnessed in recent years in California and
elsewhere in the West.
Forest studies show that fires are twice as likely to occur in areas
with roads and areas that have been logged in these roadless areas, and
under existing rules we can still practice fire management. That is
exactly what we should be doing, practicing responsible fire
management.
{time} 2130
And, yes, most of us do live surrounded by concrete and asphalt.
There have to be a few places left for our children and our
grandchildren that are unpaved. And as I said earlier, national forests
really are national property. We only have a handful of roadless areas
left. Let us leave them for our kids, and let us leave them for their
kids, our grandchildren. Our public lands really are under siege.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I urge my colleagues to oppose this roadless amendment because it
is also a mindless amendment.
The gentleman from New York suggests roadless areas are only in
remote areas. Let me show my colleagues. This is an inventoried
roadless area in Idaho. Below the line these red dots are structures
which will, if this catches on fire, burn, and we will spend millions
and millions of dollars trying to save them. These are not simply
remote areas.
Without this roadless rule, these communities in these areas are
helpless to protect themselves. As a judge in Idaho said, ``Such
restrictions will prevent local officials from accessing the vital
tools necessary to prevent the spread of disease, insect infestation,
and catastrophic wildfires.''
While the proponents of this amendment claim they care about species
habitat, the reality is this will damage species habitat. I was at the
Clear Creek fires in Idaho in the year 2000 that burned 1.8 million
acres, and we destroyed more salmon habitat with that fire than all the
logging in the history of this country.
Vote against this mindless amendment.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I had an opportunity most recently to join a couple of Members from
New York and other places around the country to visit the Tongass
National Forest. What a treasure that place is. I saw clear-cutting. I
saw the damage that has already been done to this most pristine area of
the world.
Can we not leave something to our children, our grandchildren, and
their children that has not been touched or squandered? Can we not
leave something to them that they can look back on and know that we
looked out for their future? We have that opportunity. Let us not
destroy our national forests.
I do have concerns about this, because we have a national forest in
New York State. I do not want to start down a slippery slope and have
this administration opening this up in New York as well. I have
reasons. I am not from Alaska or the West, but I love this country. I
love the West. And I have been to Alaska. And I thank God I had the
opportunity to go and see what I believe is the most beautiful part of
this great Earth we live on.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I come from the great Northwest,
and I am proud of the forests we have. My wife and I love to go out and
kayak on the lakes, and we love to hike in the woods. Generally, you
have to drive to get there. And when you get there, you want green
trees, not black trees.
Now, we are not a State that dumps our garbage or our sludge in the
ocean. We are a State that is actually pretty proud about how we have
managed and restored rivers that were polluted, how we have created
greenways and such. I thought I heard the gentleman from Florida talk
about how we have commercial logging in Federal parks. That is
prohibited by law, and that is not even the subject of this debate.
I know a lot of people who think wilderness is the same thing as a
park, is the same thing as a national forest. You cannot do anything in
a wilderness area but hike in there and out. And in some you have to
have a permit to do that.
My colleagues, this is not about commercial logging. It is not. Not
at all. This is about how we manage the public's land. And, yes, you
have every right to have a voice in this, as I do. I just wish you
would come out and see what we live in; how these lands are managed.
Do my colleagues know that we had enormous fires in Oregon last year
and this year; fires that burned so hot they create a tornado effect
that does a blow-down of trees? The embers blow 2 to 3 miles in
advance. Those embers do
[[Page H7091]]
not look down and say, ``Oops, wilderness; oops, roadless; oh, private
land.''
We need balance here, and this is not it.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey), a person who has been a great champion of this
issue for many years.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the national forest system was created
nearly a century ago by President Theodore Roosevelt. He said he was
creating it for the greatest good, for the greatest number in the long
run, and that is something we should not forget.
The roadless policy is necessary, unfortunately, because the Forest
Service has failed to protect our forests in the public interest. Under
their stewardship, 400,000 miles of logging roads have been built,
while industrial activities have encroached on more than half of all
the national forest lands.
If my colleagues want to know where the fires are, look for where the
roads have been built. That is where to find the fires. Where the so-
called thinning has occurred, that is where to find the fires. So this
whole business about building roads in order to prevent fires is
totally bogus.
Building new roads is a fiscal and environmental disaster. The Forest
Service road construction and timber programs have been completely
mismanaged. The Forest Service has an $8.4 billion road maintenance
backlog. It cannot take care of the roads it has now. National forests
in 16 States have a road maintenance backlog of more than $100 million
in each and every one of those States. They cannot take care of the
roads they have already built. Road building and commercial
exploitation will leave behind impaired lands whose repair the
taxpayers will have to finance.
Unroaded portions of our national forests are not only the most
important habitats for fish and wildlife, but are critical sources for
clean drinking water for more than 60 million Americans, and they are
in my colleagues' districts. Our constituents are demanding that these
areas be protected for themselves and for future generations.
The Clinton administration developed this policy. They did it in a
very comprehensive and detailed way, and many of us here in this room
took part in that process. The roadless policy was one of the most
significant national forest conservation measures of the last 100 years
and should have been preserved as an enduring legacy for true forest
protection.
But unfortunately it has not, because of the way it has been
mismanaged and because of the way it is threatened by the present
administration. This amendment needs to be passed.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
There is much misinformation on this subject. The gentlewoman earlier
said that the forest belongs to the public, and it does. It is the
people's forest, no matter where they live; and that gives us a great
responsibility because we cannot, through ignorance, destroy it. We
want to save it because of the beauty it has, as well as the commercial
value.
President Roosevelt created the Forest Service to be harvested as a
source of fiber for the country in the best scientific way possible as
an example to private landowners on how to manage in the future their
forests. The Park Service was created to not be harvested. It is inside
the Department of the Interior. The Forest Service is inside the
agricultural department.
If someone going down the street has a heart attack, we do not want
someone to come up off the pavement and say, well, I read a book about
this, or I saw something on TV. I am ready to carve the fellow open and
do something. We would want a professional to take care of the problem.
We have our best schools of forestry at our universities. We have the
best science at our experimental stations.
We have the responsibility to protect the forests and to use the best
science possible. I would urge all of my colleagues go to the
universities that have the best schools of forestry and talk about
that, because they train people there in the area of silviculture with
modern technology. We can do wonderful things with that, in assessing
what we can do in the forest rather than read a pamphlet and say we
should have no roads; we should have no harvest at all.
We must maintain the forests in a scientific manner. We have had
environmental rules in the last 20 years that have probably destroyed
10 times more trees than have been harvested. The forests belongs to
the people, but along with that is the responsibility to use the best
educated people in our areas to maintain them. I urge a ``no'' vote on
this amendment.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we are all here a very brief period of time, not just
in Congress but on Earth; and I would posit to all of my colleagues
that we have a better legacy than this in the most pristine national
forest we have. But more importantly, that is the sentiment of over 2
million of our citizens who turned out at over 600 meetings to urge the
Federal Government to listen to their sentiments.
It is the decision of the Taxpayers for Common Sense, because this
rule is fiscally flexible. It is a decision of Trout Unlimited, because
it protects water. It is the decision of the League of Conservation
Voters. These groups agree with the 2 million people who know that this
is a flexible rule, that, yes, allows us to deal with insect
infestation. There is an exception in the rule, allows us to deal with
fire. There is an exception in the rule, allows us to deal with access
to leases. There is an exception in the rule, allows us to get access
to our homes for private inholdings. There is an exception in the rule.
This rule was very carefully calibrated and developed. Let us have a
legacy for our grandchildren we can be proud of. Pass this amendment.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Inslee
amendment and commend to my colleagues the following letter and dear
colleague.
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, July 17, 2003.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Your letter dated July 11, 2003, jointly
signed by Representative Robert Goodlatte, requested the
Department of Agriculture's views of the effects of a
proposed legislative rider to the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill that would prohibit the Forest
Service from expending funds to either: (1) modify the
Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule); and/or (2)
undertake certain management activities within lands affected
by the Roadless Rule.
Either approach could have serious, unintended adverse
effects. The Department strongly opposes the proposed riders.
If they were included within the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill, I would recommend that the
President exercise his veto authority for the following
reasons.
On Monday, July 14, a Federal District Court in Wyoming
issued an order setting aside the Roadless Rule for the
entire country. Under this decision, no Roadless Rule will be
in effect unless and until the Department lawfully
promulgates a new Roadless Rule--but that is exactly what the
proposed rider forbids. As a result, the rider would have the
perverse effect of preventing the Department from protecting
roadless areas. Indeed, the Chief of the Forest Service could
not even-issue interim direction to the field governing the
protection of roadless values, as he did the last time the
Roadless Rule was enjoined by a court.
In the event the nationwide injunction were overturned at
some point in the future, the proposed rider would still
impede the Department's ability to protect roadless areas in
other respects. For example, USDA recently reached an
agreement with the State of Alaska in a lawsuit challenging
the Roadless Rule on special grounds applicable only to
Alaska. In order to settle the suit, the U.S. agreed to
propose a rule that would prohibit timber harvest on 95% of
the roadless acres in the Tongass and Chugach National
Forests while making a small portion of roadless areas in
these forests (less than 3%) available for management. If the
proposed rider were to be enacted, the State of Alaska would
certainly re-file its lawsuit against USDA, threatening to
remove protection for all Alaska roadless areas.
Additionally, the proposed rider would not allow the
flexibility to address unforeseen circumstances in the future
to respond to threats to the environment and adjacent private
property. It would not even allow the flexibility to take
pre-emptive action to treat known problems and potentially
dangerous situations to prevent threats to public health and
safety such as reducing wildfire risks to communities in the
wildland-urban interface when communities abut roadless
areas.
While a rider preventing modifications to the current
Roadless Rule would harm roadless values in these ways, a
rider prohibiting funding for management activities
[[Page H7092]]
within inventoried roadless areas could have even more
significant negative effects. Such legislation would negate
the existing exceptions contained in the original rule
allowing some on-the-ground management flexibility.
These original exceptions, while overly narrow and
difficult and costly to implement, nevertheless, allow a
limited amount of active management to: (1) improve roadless
characteristics; (2) improve threatened, endangered,
proposed, or sensitive species habitat; (3) maintain or
restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and
structure; and (4) protect public health and safety in cases
of an imminent threat of flood, fire, or other catastrophic
event that, without intervention, would cause the loss of
life or property. Prohibiting management activities in
inventoried roadless areas would be even more prohibitive
then provisions allowing some level of management in areas
designated by Congress as wilderness.
More importantly, such a rider would severely compromise
and most certainly delay implementation of the National Fire
Plan and the Ten-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation
Plan developed in cooperation with the Western Governors
Association. Such delays could result in an increased risk of
catastrophic wildfire, with an increased risk of
environmental destruction and loss of human life and
property.
Finally, such a rider would substantially modify many of
the goals and objectives in existing land and resource
management plans, overturning over 25 years of public
involvement in the forest planning process. It could,
moreover, prevent management activities that could actually
maintain or improve roadless characteristics.
The proposal announced by the Department last month would,
by contrast, retain the existing Roadless Rule, while
providing limited additional flexibility to modify the rule
in exceptional circumstances at the request of the Governor
of an affected state to address forest health and other
issues. This could, for example, allow for activities that
reduce wildfire risks to communities or otherwise protect
human health and safety. This approach is consistent with the
land and resource management planning process, and invites
the state to participate as partners in federal resource
management. I urge the House to at least review the
Department's upcoming proposal before precluding it.
Thank you for the opportunity to address your concerns
about the potential riders. I am sending an identical letter
to Representative Goodlatte.
Sincerely,
Ann M. Veneman.
____
July 14, 2003.
Dear Colleague: The untold story of the last fire season,
and the so many like it before, is the catastrophic impact of
unnatural wildfire on the nation's wildlife. Wildfire is a
wildlife killer!
Unfortunately, some Members of Congress are expected to
push a rider that would make it virtually impossible to
manage nearly 60 million acres of our national forests. The
rider would implement the so-called Roadless Rule, a policy
that one federal judge said violated the National
Environmental Policy Act. In the name of saving our forests,
the rider would actually place our forests, wildlife and
water squarely in the cross-hairs of catastrophic wildfire.
Professional land managers skilled in the science of forest
management would be effectively handcuffed--even when these
areas are adjacent to homes, even when these areas are
adjacent to sources of clean drinking water, even when these
areas provide habitat to endangered species.
Here's how the Forest Service described a similar rider
last year. ``Forest Service experts estimate that such a
policy could expose more than 57 million acres of unroaded
and roaded areas to the effects of severe wildfire, including
degradation of municipal watersheds, loss of critical
habitat, and loss of income derived from those lands by
outfitters, guides, hiking, and camping. In addition,
adjacent public and private lands would be placed in
indefensible positions from the advance of an uncontrolled
wildfire burning off federal lands. . . The public and
firefighters would be placed at great risk to injury and loss
of life if the ability to fight fire and manage fuels at the
scientifically correct place were lost.''
The Roadless rider is bad for our forests, our wildlife and
our communities.
Sincerely,
Richard Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources.
Scott McInnis,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,
Committee on Resources.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Bereuter
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 12.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Bereuter:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. 3____. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used for the implementation of a competitive sourcing
study at the Midwest Archaeological Center in Lincoln,
Nebraska, or the Southeast Archaeological Center in Florida.
The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 5 minutes of
my time be yielded to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) and that he
may be allowed to manage that 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Nebraska?
There was no objection.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I have in my hands an article from The
Washington Post of July 15 that says, ``Archeologists on the Block?
Park Service May Ax Its Experts on `OutSourcing' Initiative.'' And that
is what this is all about.
I have no complaints with the committee. I have come with this
amendment as a last resort in stopping something that is mindless and
not well considered. I am going to speak about two centers, one located
in Tallahassee, Florida, in the district of the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Boyd), and one in my district, the Midwest Archeological Center.
This center in the Nebraska location is a center which has been in
existence for 60-plus years. I have had intimate knowledge of it for
more than 30 years. It has 12 FTE, but it has 30 temporary positions,
undergraduates and graduate students from universities in five States.
The center has developed an excellent reputation of providing
professional and technical archeological services for the management of
cultural heritage sites in the 13-State NPS Midwest region and to other
Federal agencies. I am rather certain that the persons in OMB and the
Department of the Interior that determined the process with this out-
sourcing activity were not fully aware of the center's mission and
history.
Mr. Chairman, if you read a study from the National Park Service, it
clearly shows that no feasibility study or mission of the center was
considered in the decisions made by the Department of the Interior.
Secondly, it states that in 2003, the National Park Service group had
hoped OMB would consider excluding what are called ``curatorial
series'' as ``inherently governmental.'' That would have meant that
they would have been exempt from A-76. But OMB did not agree.
Now, I do not resist A-76. I have consented and gone along with A-76
for other Federal employment in my district. But this process is flawed
from the beginning.
{time} 2145
Mr. Chairman, the consultants hired by the National Park Service, and
thus far they have spent $412,766, they are about to spend another
$872,000 to examine these two centers, nearly $1.3 million. They had no
latitude to suggest that the activities should not be considered for
outsourcing. In fact, I have been told by my staff that the consultants
have been instructed not to answer any questions that might be asked by
congressional staff. These instructions came following the consultants'
statements that the centers should not have been chosen for outsourcing
study.
[[Page H7093]]
I ask Members, would it be appropriate to ask whether the
whistleblowers protection afforded government employees should also be
afforded to these Federal government contractors? Accordingly, I have
good reason to assume the consultants operated under an imperative to
find a rationale for outsourcing the activities of these centers.
The Park Service was given a quota by the Department of Interior.
They looked at the seven regions and the three centers, looked at
another center in Washington, and said you have to find so many jobs
for outsourcing study. They said, ``we do not want to take them all out
of blue collar workers; we also have to take some jobs for outsourcing
study out of the upper end,'' and so that is what they did. They chose
the curatorial category--archaeological person--to study, and they
chose them despite the fact that they should have been exempt as
``inherently governmental. I will have more to say on this issue in a
few minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) has
done an excellent job of outlining the process by which the
administration has arrived at this proposal to outsource these
archaeologists. I would like to remind Members that there are fewer
than 100 archaeologists between Nebraska and Tallahassee that would be
affected by this outsourcing. These archaeologists work with the help
of volunteers, cooperative agreements, with universities and their own
outsourcing to care for some 122 National Parks and 780 national
landmarks in 22 States, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
This amendment would prohibit any funds in the Interior bill from
being used for a competitive sourcing study in the Midwest
Archaeological Center in Nebraska or the Southeast Archaeological
Center in Tallahassee.
I think it is important to understand what the work of these centers
are, and I will speak to the Tallahassee Center, since I know it best.
This center is currently excavating an Indian burial mound at Shiloh
National Military Park in Tennessee while working around the graves of
Civil War soldiers who were killed on the mound during the Battle of
Shiloh in 1862 and buried on that spot.
The Southeast Center has also conducted archaeological excavations at
the site of the Confederate Prison in Andersonville, Georgia, where
they found new information on the architectural details and conditions
at the prison.
This center has well over 30 years of archaeological experience and
has been based on the campus of Florida State University since 1972. It
shares a unique partnership with the Department of Anthropology at
Florida State University where they share space, personnel, expertise
and equipment. The center employs 26 permanent full-time personnel and
a large host of part-time student appointments and other volunteers
that boast some 300 years of combined archaeological experience. The
center has completed over 200 projects since 1990, and the National
Park Service recognizes these projects as cost-effective, timely, and
of the highest quality.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Interior and
Related Agencies.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in sympathy with this amendment. I
know the chairman may want to comment on this as well.
I saw the article in the paper which affects the Nebraska and
Tallahassee sites. We tried to deal with 2004 and new starts, as I
understand it. A lot of money has been spent without getting proper
congressional approval. I am very troubled by these incidents.
I appreciate the gentleman raising this issue on the floor, and I
look forward to hearing from the chairman.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have to reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
I do not believe we should prejudge on an individual basis the outcome
of these competitive sourcing studies.
As the gentleman knows, I have included language in this bill which
directs the agencies to complete all ongoing studies and report to the
committee before taking any specific actions. We did this for several
reasons. We are concerned that 50 percent of the National Park Service
jobs are rated commercial in nature. We are also concerned that the
agencies have been spending money without reprogramming to the
committee for approval.
While the Department of Interior seems to be doing a good job, we
must insist that they follow the congressional rules because we are not
a potted plant. We are here to maintain the Department and do our duty.
I would ask the gentleman, however, to consider withdrawing his
amendment and assure him that we will try to work with him on this, if
possible.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his generous
offer, but this is so important that I cannot withdraw this amendment.
This is my last resort. The gentleman's amendment handles those studies
that are underway. Unfortunately, we are told that this study has moved
too far along for it to be stopped by the gentleman's more general
language in the bill. So our only hope is to resist it at this point.
I am not able to withdraw this amendment. I need to push this to a
vote, and I need to win this vote. This is an important issue. I have
never used this word on the floor before in 25 years, but this process
has been not only flawed, but it has been stupidly proceeded with.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I would assure the gentleman that
nothing has gone too far that could not be corrected. I ask again if
the gentleman would withdraw his amendment. Otherwise, I will have to
reluctantly oppose it.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
I am reluctant to oppose the gentleman, but I am counseled that I must
take this course, and I cannot withdraw the amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by saying that both of these centers
are nonprofit-oriented, and they seek to do what is in the best
interest of the public, not what is asked of them by some outside
interest. These centers are understaffed and underfunded, but they make
up for that through cooperative agreements with the universities that
they are positioned at and also with a tremendous amount of volunteer
work.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and that he may control
that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.
I have the greatest respect for the chairman, and I had hopes that
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) would accept the suggestion
of the chairman. I will say this respectfully, that sometimes in this
game Members learn when to hold them and fold them.
But I also would support the gentleman's amendment. This business of
archaeology is crucial. It has been proven that these two centers, one
in the district of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) and one in the
district of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), are doing jobs
beyond what is required by the Park Service. This is driven by OMB; I
do not believe it is driven by the committee.
[[Page H7094]]
I hope Members understand it is important that we have this service
available to us as professionals. These two agencies, these two
centers, have done an outstanding job not only for the Park Service but
for the military branches, for other branches within the government,
and they are called upon because of their expertise.
This is a small amount of money. Like I said, the committee has done
their job, and I understand the restrictions which they are under. I
urge the committee to consider what the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Bereuter) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) have suggested.
This is important enough to ensure that these monies are funded for and
not cut back. I believe in a lot of privatization, but archaeology is a
system that has to be addressed by professionals, and these people are
truly professionals.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's advice. I have great
respect for the chairman. In this instance, I have fought this process
for over a year. The first letters I received from the Department of
Interior were, shall I say, nonresponsive and also condescending.
There are only three such centers in the United States. We are
dealing with two of them here, the majority of the archaeological
capability. It is mentioned that they frequently do things for other
parts of the Federal Government. They have been involved in looking for
the remains of the POWs and MIAs in Vietnam. They were involved in
examining the sites of the war crimes in the Balkans. This is a
particular expertise that will never, ever, be put back in place again
if it is destroyed.
These employees and centers should never have been categorized this
way. It is a mistake. They do not want to admit it. Their consultants
say it was a mistake, and they have been hushed up as a result with
pressure from the National Park Service, pressure which ultimately does
come, as the distinguished gentleman from Alaska suggested, from OMB.
It is a bean-counter that is doing something that is senseless.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter)
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. 3.____. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to implement amendments to Bureau of Land
Management regulations on Recordable Disclaimers of Interest
in Land (subpart 1864 of part 1860 of title 43, Code of
Federal Regulations) as adopted on January 6, 2003.
The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall) will be recognized for 10 minutes, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) will be recognized for 15 minutes, and
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) will be recognized for 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to protect not just
Federal lands but private property in the public interest. It would do
that by preventing the Department of Interior from going ahead with
secret negotiations leading to back-room land deals.
Under those deals, the Department of Interior would issue disclaimers
of interest. A disclaimer of interest is like a deed. It gives away the
government's claim to an interest in land. For decades, the Department
of Interior issued them to people who were on record as owning the
lands involved. It was a legal technicality, important for the people
involved, but not a tool for changing the management of sensitive
Federal lands or creating problems for private landowners.
But a few months ago that changed when the Department of Interior
changed its regulations. The new rules give the Department of Interior
broad authority to issue disclaimers to parties that would not have
been eligible under the old rules, and the Department of Interior has
announced it is ready to give those disclaimers to parties seeking them
in order to clear the way for building roads.
Congress needs to stop that. We need to rein in the Department of
Interior, and we need to do it now. Members can get an idea why by
looking at this map here. It shows some of the potential RS-2477 claims
just in a part of the California desert that is San Bernardino County.
We can see how these claims could slice through national park system
lands, wilderness areas, and even Federal lands used for military
bases.
Private property is also at risk. This problem is not new, but it is
serious. It needs to be resolved, but not the way the Department of
Interior wants to resolve it.
{time} 2200
When the Interior Department wants to negotiate in secret and then
issue the disclaimers I described, it is not taking us down the right
path. Instead of making deals, the Bush administration needs to come to
Congress for new legislation. That is what this Congress told the
Clinton administration when Secretary Bruce Babbitt moved to change the
Interior Department's RS 2477 regulations. To make sure that Secretary
Babbitt got the message, Congress passed a law that says any new RS
2477 rules must be authorized by Congress. That law is still on the
books, and repeating that message is the purpose of my amendment. The
best way to resolve this is by enacting new legislation after public
hearings and open debate. That is why I have introduced a bill, H.R.
1639, to do just that. My bill would set a deadline, 4 more years, for
filing RS 2477 claims. It would establish a fair, open administrative
process for handling these claims. And it would set another deadline
for any lawsuit challenging the result of that administrative process.
Mr. Chairman, I hoped my amendment would not be necessary tonight.
That is why I sent, along with 80 Members, the Secretary a letter on
this subject. In our letter we urged Secretary Norton not to try to use
the new disclaimer regulations to deal with RS 2477 claims. In short,
we warned the Interior Department that it was asking for trouble if it
went ahead with its plans. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, our warning has
not been heeded. The Interior Department evidently intends to go full
steam ahead. So to protect the public, we need to call a halt by
adopting my amendment. Then this issue can be resolved by new
legislation. Instead of trying to sidestep the Congress, the
administration should work with us. I am certainly ready to work with
them; and I believe Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, and other
members of the Committee on Resources on both sides of the aisle would
be willing to do the work that is necessary. But before that can
happen, the administration has to change course. That is why we need to
adopt this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
amendment offered by mr. Taylor of north carolina to amendment no. 1
offered by mr. udall of colorado
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment to the
amendment.
The text of the amendment to the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Taylor of North Carolina to
amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado:
[[Page H7095]]
Before the final period, insert the following: ``, with
regard to any lands within a designated National Monument,
Wilderness Study Area, National Park System unit, National
Wildlife Refuge System unit, or lands within the National
Wilderness Preservation System''.
The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
My amendment prohibits the use of funds by the Bureau of Land
Management to use the recordable disclaimer regulations with regard to
any lands within a designated national monument, wilderness study area,
National Park Service unit, National Wildlife Refuge System unit, or
lands within the national wilderness preservation system. This should
resolve once and for all the concerns of the environmental community.
In developing these regulations, the Bureau of Land Management
considered over 17,000 public comments before finalizing the rule. This
rule is very important because it allows landowners to petition the BLM
to issue a determination that the Federal Government does not have any
property interest in privately owned land where ownership is not clear.
The disclaimer process is welcomed by most western States as a means
of bringing certainty to the ownership of real property and allowing
economic development to take place without having to resort to
litigation.
I also want to make it absolutely clear that the Department of the
Interior's new recordable disclaimers of interest in land regulations
were never put in place to build roads in national parks, wildlife
refuges, national monuments, wilderness areas, or wilderness study
areas.
I urge my colleagues to support this perfecting amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment may be described as perfecting my
amendment, but it really does not do that. My amendment would block the
Interior Department from making backroom deals to give away public
lands and threaten private landowners. This amendment would say that
backroom deals are okay as long as the Interior Department minds its
manners while it is making them. The amendment says that there should
not be any deals involving the national parks and some other parts of
the Federal lands; but it does nothing to protect the national forests,
the national trails system, the wild and scenic rivers system or any of
the national conservation areas managed by the Bureau of Land
Management. Worse, it does nothing at all to protect millions of acres
of public lands that deserve protection as wilderness. That includes
lands in Colorado, Utah, and other States that would be designated as
wilderness under bills that are pending in Congress right now.
Worst of all, the amendment does nothing to protect private lands or
the lands owned by States and local governments. RS 2477 is not just
about Federal lands. It involves lands that were owned by the Federal
Government at one time or another between 1866 and 1976. That is more
than 100 years, and it is most of the West. It includes the millions of
acres that were homesteaded, given to the States, granted to railroad
companies, or claimed under mining laws. My amendment protects those
lands from backroom deals. The Taylor amendment does nothing to protect
them.
In short, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment because it does
not do what we should do. We need to rein in the Interior Department,
not just tell them to play nicely. We need to tell the administration
to come to Congress for legislation to resolve the RS 2477 issue. This
amendment, although I know it is well-intended, would not do that. It
does not cover all of these lands. The amendment is mostly cosmetic,
and it falls short of what is needed.
Mr. Chairman, for those reasons, I would urge rejection of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado has insisted
that this is a back-door deal. I think that it is important to
understand that this is not a back-door deal; it is a deal that was
done at the suggestion of the National Association of Counties under
their direction and under their purview as a memorandum of
understanding that could be used in other States and as a model for
solving these problems. This is about solving problems.
In addition, the gentleman continues to suggest that there are areas
that are worthy of wilderness designation when, in fact, wilderness is
not a protection of land. A wilderness designation is a recreational
protection. It is a place where people can go and be away from
modernity, and that is a worthy value; but it does not go to the legal
right that States and counties have to their roads, the roads that they
have had for 100 or 150 years. That is the issue that we need to deal
with today.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for
yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the Taylor amendment and
in strong support of the Udall amendment. Interior Secretary Gale
Norton has resurrected an arcane and archaic rule that defies common
sense and threatens beautiful and remote areas across the West. Surely
there was a time when we needed laws like RS 2477 to settle the land
and win the West, but the West is won; and now we face a new battle, a
battle for the splendor of the few remaining wild places. And it is not
going to be an easy battle with an administration that consistently
comes up with increasingly creative ways to remove public land
protections and shut the public out of the process.
But if this administration hoped to bamboozle Westerners with their
stealth attempts to undermine existing protections, they have got
another think coming. I have heard from hundreds of constituents back
home who understand that these disclaimer decisions have momentous
scope. They have not been blinded by the arcane and arbitrary nature of
these decisions. That is why Congress should not be, either.
I will state it baldly: build a road across an area, and it is
forever eliminated from wilderness consideration. Behind all the
trickery, backroom deals and sleight of hand, that is what is happening
here. With these decisions, bureaucratic agencies have limited
Congress' opportunity to exercise its exclusive authority to designate
qualifying lands as wilderness as well as taking away an important
management tool of the BLM.
Over the last decade, citizens from my home State and Mr. Udall's
home State of Colorado took to the trails to develop the Citizens'
Wilderness Proposal that is the basis of the act I have sponsored
called the Colorado Wilderness Act. These are the voices that will be
silenced by the backroom wheeling and dealing of the Department of the
Interior.
I believe that truly wild places define who we are as citizens of
this country. As such, they deserve protection. But even those who
disagree that we should have more wilderness and fall squarely in the
private property camp should be leery of opening up RS 2477 claims. My
staff met with a property owner from Boulder County. She and her
husband purchased her then vacant lot in 1993 and built a home. This
parcel had an existing driveway for access. But since the neighbors had
gotten used to using that driveway, even though it is a private drive,
they cannot use adverse possession, the neighbors, so now they are
resorting to RS 2477 claims. No matter that the maps do not show this
claim, no matter that the aerial photos confirm that the road did not
exist during the 1930s and 1940s. She and her family have been
consistently harassed by individuals who think they have a right to go
across these private lands. So if you do not think we should protect
the wilderness, if you do not think we have a right to introduce
legislation
[[Page H7096]]
without these arcane claims being asserted, do it for private property
rights.
Vote ``no'' on this amendment and vote ``yes'' on the Udall
amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time. It is my understanding, and I usually do not get involved in
something that happens in Utah or Colorado, being from the State of
Maryland, but having taken some time to look at this, the new rule that
opens up some other possibilities for right of ways was promulgated
January 6, 2003, this year. The first memorandum of understanding that
grew out of that rule, it is my understanding, happened in Utah when
Utah developed its memorandum of understanding to implement this new
rule which has been different from what we have been used to for the
past 100 years. It actually did a pretty good job in its promulgation
of the rule, because it protected wilderness areas, wilderness study
areas, refuges, national parks, not monuments, but in the Taylor
amendment, it does protect monuments.
What the second-degree amendment attempts to do is limit the ability
to file these disclaimers on Federal land that is designated
wilderness, national parks, refuges, and national monuments to use the
example that Utah has used in this new rulemaking.
I am one that favors strongly, for a number of reasons, the
protection of private property rights and the protection of our
wilderness areas and our Federal lands. What I would like to do with
the gentleman from Utah, if we can agree on the second-degree amendment
with the gentleman from North Carolina, is pass the second-degree
amendment to the Udall amendment. Once all of these lands are protected
for at least a year, we can work through the process of trying to make
the rule that was promulgated in January a little bit more open-ended.
I do not think there are any backroom deals that went through as far
as this rulemaking was concerned. I have talked to the Forest Service,
I have talked to a number of people. I talked today to the Governor of
Utah about this process, calling from Moscow. I feel strongly that the
second-degree amendment protects the kinds of lands that we want to
protect for the kinds of things that we are considering here, which is
right of way, which are roads, which are private property problems.
{time} 2215
Even within the Utah MOU, told to me by the governor of Utah today,
not one cow path, not one horse path, not one area that is not and has
not been a road will ever become a road on any Federal land. So I urge
a vote on the gentleman from North Carolina's amendment.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Matheson as a Substitute for Amendment No. 1
Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for
the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Matheson as a substitute for
amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following new section:
Sec. 3____. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to implement amendments to Bureau of Land
Management regulations on Recordable Disclaimers of Interest
in Land (subpart 1864 of part 1860 of title 43, Code of
Federal Regulations) as adopted on January 6, 2003, with
regard to any lands in National Parks, Wilderness Areas,
Wilderness Study Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, National
Monuments, military bases, or any roads except public
highways, roads, or streets that are traveled ways maintained
by a county or incorporated municipality, over which a
conventional two-wheel drive vehicle may travel, and with
regard to private property.
The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Matheson) will control 10 minutes, and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Taylor) will control 10 minutes in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the sixth generation of Utah,
and I come from the West. I come from a State with public lands. Quite
frankly, public lands in the West are what this issue is all about that
we talk about tonight; and I have grown up with a legacy of the use of
those public lands in my State. My roots are in southern Utah. Some of
my family is involved in grazing on public lands in Utah.
It is a remarkable State. It is like a lot of the Western States, and
it has got a lot of remarkable public lands, some places that are very
special. As time has evolved, a lot of people around the world have
discovered those lands as well; and I think it is safe to say, and I
think there would be consensus at some point, that there is a lot of
land out there that is worthy of protection because of its remarkable
value.
When I talk about the public lands debate, I know tonight we are
talking about the issue of RS 2477 and designation of roads, but it is
really part of the overall public lands debate we have in our State and
in the West. I look back over my lifetime about how that debate has
been carried out. When I think about it, I think about so much emotion
and so much effort that has gone into this debate, but there has been
no progress. I am alarmed by the lack of progress.
As the West continues to grow and the population grows and the
pressures develop, it is time for us to try to come together and try to
make progress on these issues and resolve these issues as best we can.
There are not just two sides to this issue. It is not that simple.
There are multiple stakeholders involved in public land matters in Utah
and in the West. I have talked to so many of them. Quite frankly, I
have talked to a lot of them just during this week in preparation and
anticipation of the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Udall) amendment
that would be introduced today.
I have talked to county commissioners throughout rural Utah, and
there is not unanimity among that group, quite frankly. There is a
divergence of opinion. I have talked to all kinds of stakeholders, the
sportsmen community. I have talked to the recreation community.
There are lots of different points of view, and these points of view
all have legitimate claims, and it is unfortunate that we have been
unable to bring those stakeholders together in a way to resolve these
issues.
In some respects, life repeats itself, as was mentioned by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) earlier. The Department of Interior
in 1997 under Secretary Babbitt issued rules to deal with RS 2477.
Congress did not like it, passed legislation just like we are looking
at now to stop the funding of processing under that rule, and Congress
said they are not going to make any other rules until Congress deals
with it.
Let us flash forward to 2003. The Department of Interior under a
different Secretary has issued a new set of rules, and once again we
are revisiting that issue of whether or not Congress should be involved
in trying to have an inclusive process where we get all the
stakeholders together and try to make progress on this issue.
There is no question that there are legitimate claims out there for
roads under RS 2477. We all know that. We all know there are roads that
are roads. We know there would be some claims out there where we would
agree there really are not roads. I would submit to the Members, in
fact, that most of the claims in Utah are not controversial. But the
problem is that everybody has been scared, everyone has been scared to
deal with the noncontroversial roads, thinking they would make some
precedent that would get them at a disadvantaged position when we deal
with the controversial claims.
So we have been involved in one litigation after another, and one
administration promulgates one set of rules, and another administration
promulgates a different set of rules, and we are not making any
progress.
I bring before the Members tonight an amendment. It is not a perfect
amendment. It is not a perfect amendment. It is not perfect to any
stakeholder in this debate. But what it attempts to do is make some
progress, some progress in trying to designate the least controversial
roads and allow them to move forward. In Utah, we call them class B
roads. That is a State
[[Page H7097]]
classification. But we have adopted that language in my substitute
amendment.
These are roads that can be traveled by two-wheel-drive vehicles.
These are roads where I would suspect that no one would disagree that
it is a legitimate claim. And I am not saying this solves the entire RS
2477 debate, but it is an opportunity to have some people come together
on the least controversial part of this whole issue and try to make
some progress.
I also want to mention one other component of my substitute
amendment, and that is that I specifically talk about the issue of
roads that cross private property, and I say that private property
rights need to be maintained and that one cannot file claims on that
type of land.
Finally, I mentioned earlier the amount of litigation that has been
associated with this, and this is not the end. This is not the end. It
is unfortunate how much litigation we have seen here, and we are going
to see it again. We are going to see it on this ruling that came out on
January 6, I predict, and I think all of us are a little tired of that.
I think we are tired of having that as a way to try to resolve things.
It is time for Congress to step up to the plate and do its job.
In 1997, I was not here, but Congress said we have got to do this. We
do not agree with what Secretary Babbitt did at that time, and it is up
to Congress to come together.
This substitute amendment is a stopgap. It is a stopgap to move
forward on one set of the least controversial roads. It is not the
solution. The solution is that we ought to hold hearings, we ought to
try to move forward and make progress, bring the interests of all the
stakeholders together, and let us make progress and move forward on RS
2477 claims.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks) to talk on this issue.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the gentleman that I commend
him on his effort and diligence in this effort. Regardless how the
amendment works, we are going to continue to work to try to find a
solution to this problem, and I appreciate his leadership and effort.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for his
comments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates
clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment
to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing
existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Utah wish to be heard on the
point of order? Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) makes a point of order
that the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Matheson) for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Udall) proposes to change existing law in violation of clause 2(c) of
rule XXI.
As recorded in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section
52, even though a limitation or exception therefrom might refrain from
explicitly assigning new duties to officers of the government, if it
implicitly requires them to make investigations, compile evidence, or
make judgments and determinations not otherwise required of them by
law, then it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a
point of order under clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
The proponent of an amendment assumes the burden of establishing that
any duties imposed by the amendment are already required by law.
The Chair finds that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Matheson) does more than simply impose a negative restriction on
the funds in the bill.
Instead, it requires the officials concerned to determine the precise
nature of roads involved, including determining whether certain types
of vehicles may travel on them.
In addition, as the Chair understands the state of current law, the
relevant Federal agency is under a requirement only to ascertain
whether a right-of-way crosses nonFederal land. The amendment offered
by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) would further require the
agency to determine who owns the nonFederal land.
The proponent of the amendment has been unable to carry the burden of
establishing that the agency is already charged by law with making
these determinations.
On these premises, the Chair concludes that the substitute amendment
offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) for the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) proposes to change
existing law.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in
order.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Taylor
amendment and in strong support of the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr.
Udall) amendment on the issue of revised statute 2477.
Arizona's spectacular public lands are renowned throughout the
country, if not the world. They contain many of our Nation's most
beautiful landscapes, and every year Arizona's deserts, canyons, and
mountains are enjoyed by millions of residents and visitors from around
the globe.
But Arizona's natural areas are fragile. They are extremely
vulnerable to the impacts of off-road vehicles, sprawl, timber cutting,
mining, overgrazing, and other activities. My home State ranks third in
the Nation for imperiled wildlife, with 63 species listed as endangered
or threatened.
The amendment I urge the Members to support today would prevent the
public and private lands in Arizona from being terribly harmed. This
amendment would stop the Secretary of the Interior from implementing
her ``Disclaimer of Interest.''
The Members may have heard of one of the places which will be
severely damaged by the Secretary's disclaimer, Grand Canyon National
Park. It is a treasure not only to Arizona but to the citizens of the
entire United States. The map I have brought today with me represents
only one area that would be permanently harmed by the Secretary's
disclaimer.
In 1997, the Park Service warned Congress that the park and its
surrounding wilderness were under serious threat. The map shows
hundreds of potential rights of way that might be claimed across the
north rim of the Grand Canyon, an area that the Park Service is
currently protecting.
We in the West have been living with the consequences of RS 2477 for
over 100 years. I strongly support the Udall amendment, which would
prevent any funds from being spent by the Interior to process 2477
claims until Congress determines what approaches we should take with
regard to these claims.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Udall amendment and in
opposition of the Taylor amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
This has been quite an interesting day and now into the evening.
First, we had an amendment to stop the Forest Service from issuing new
forest plans. Then we had an amendment to keep 57 million acres
roadless, and now we are going after an amendment that goes after areas
that have roads in them.
Some serious issues have been raised over many years about RS 2477
roads and what the impact is on these areas and what they should be
used for and all of the different issues. But one thing that keeps
coming up tonight is all of these wilderness areas and parks that
should be off limits. I think that is a legitimate point, and the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) responded to that by
offering a perfected amendment to the underlying amendment which takes
the national monuments, the wilderness study areas, the national parks,
National Wildlife Refuge System, National Wilderness Preservation
System, takes all of those lands out so
[[Page H7098]]
that they are not part of this process just to assure everyone that the
areas that they are so concerned about that they keep bringing up over
and over here during this debate are not the areas that will be
affected by the underlying rule.
There is very little timber harvesting that still occurs on public
lands. There is very little mining. Grazing has been pushed aside.
There is some tourism left, and now it looks like we are going to go
after the ability to have access to our public lands. It is a concerted
effort, one amendment right after the other. Limit public access, limit
their ability to get out there, shut down those roads, shut down those
areas, do not let anybody into our public lands. It is a concerted
effort, amendment after amendment.
I, quite frankly, feel that the administration is trying to solve
this particular problem in a balanced approach in working with the
States and the counties, trying to figure out what is really a road and
what is not and what should have access and what should not. It is a
balanced approach. I believe that we should support the gentleman from
North Carolina's (Mr. Taylor) amendment. If that amendment does not
pass, I believe we should vote against the gentleman from Colorado's
(Mr. Udall) amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman a question. We
talked about several things today, as the gentleman mentioned, and
several times the chairman promised that we were going to have prompt
legislative action by the Committee on Resources to deal with some of
these problems. Since this was blocked a few years ago because of the
regulations, is there any interest in the Committee on Resources to
take up this issue so it does not wind in the Committee on
Appropriations? Is there any desire to try to help resolve this?
{time} 2230
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the ranking member
brings up, I believe, a very important point. This is something that
should go through the Committee on Resources. I will be more than happy
and willing to sit down with the different Members who have these roads
in their districts, in their States, and other Members from other parts
of the country to try to work out a compromise that everyone could live
with. This is not something that the gentleman should be dealing with
on the appropriations bill every year. I would be more than happy to
sit down with the Members and try to work out a rational, balanced
compromise so that we are not back here next year with a similar
amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I think the chairman has, with his perfecting amendment, admitted
that the administration had perhaps gone a road too far with their
proposal, and what the chairman proposes would protect some of the most
precious of our public lands against obscure, specious claims of right-
of-way access.
Unfortunately, the chairman's amendment does not, in my opinion, go
quite far enough. Among the things that the chairman excludes from
protection are private lands. And I would refer to the Salt Lake
Tribune, on Saturday, June 21, 2003, which is an article about a
couple, Jana and Ron Smith who, despite having researched and properly
purchased their property, found that when they returned at one point
from a vacation, that the local district attorney and the road crews
had cut a chain, removed a gate, pulled down the private property
signs, and provided full access to their very obscure and remote
property which they had bought for those values. Unfortunately, they
ultimately had to resort to the courts and the courts upheld their
rights to the private property.
But if this underlying legislation, even with the chairman's
amendment, remains in the bill authorizing the actions by the
administration, it would color the claims of Jana and Ron Smith and
others and prejudice them and, minimally, require people with private
property to have to hire expensive attorneys to defend their rights to
their own property but, in all probability, perhaps jeopardize their
claims to defend their property.
It not only excludes private property, and I am surprised that the
majority party would not have included private property in this
amendment, and perhaps the gentleman will want to amend his amendment
by unanimous consent to include private lands. Military lands are not
included, so we may, again, find obscure or potentially specious claims
to military lands and reservations which are quite extensive in the
western United States. Again, I am surprised that the majority party
would not be sensitive to the concerns of the military about allowing
unbridled access across their reservations.
It also would exclude areas of critical environmental concern, wild
and scenic rivers, national trails, national conservation areas, and
other public lands.
So I think what the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) tried to do,
which was not allowed, which would have opened this process to begin
those most legitimate and obvious claims, let us grant those. Yes, let
us grant them. Let us not have them have to go to court and fight for
them, and then let us begin to parse through this very difficult
problem. But let us not open the door to jeopardizing people's private
property rights, or the rights of the military to protect Federal
property, and wild and scenic rivers, national trails, and others.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
The gentleman is aware that there is an underlying memorandum of
understanding between the Department of the Interior and the State of
Utah in that it is not possible, given the context of that MOU for the
issue of private property, to be relevant.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for that point. Unfortunately, Utah is only one State in the western
United States that would be subject to these proposals. There are a
number of other States. There is not, to the best of my knowledge, a
memorandum of understanding with Oregon, Washington, Montana, Wyoming,
Nevada, California, or other areas. And I think that we should not
depend upon MOUs, but we should legislate in these areas.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, in fact, this memorandum of understanding
was done at the suggestion and under the oversight and direction of the
National Association of Counties, with the explicit point of seeing how
it works in Utah so we could go to these other States. In other words,
no one is getting out ahead of anyone else or going to solve or create
problems in Oregon based upon an MOU in Utah.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but would we not at
this point, and I am not a lawyer, so I may be disadvantaged in this
group because of that, but would we not want to then legislate that?
Would we not want to be assured? I do not want to depend upon a future
extension of an MOU, memorandum of understanding for those who are
listening and do not understand, with this administration for the
protection of mines in other States.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, just to underscore the point, Utah got a
sweetheart deal in the settlement, but as my esteemed colleague from
Oregon said, California, Colorado, all the rest of the country does not
have this deal, so we are all betting on the something. Why not put
this memorandum in the underlying bill if it is such a great idea.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would be happy if
the chairman wishes to amend by unanimous consent his protections to
extend them to private lands, hopefully even military lands and some of
these other things, but at least to private lands because it is a
particular concern, to do that. That would be acceptable to me.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
[[Page H7099]]
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado
attempts to attack an Interior Department rule which allows memorandums
of understanding on issues of roads which have been a source of
contention and litigation since 1976. Utah is so far the only State to
have taken advantage of this memorandum of understanding.
Some people have said we are trying to change cow trails and foot
paths in pristine wilderness into roads. These are pictures of the
actual roads in which we are dealing in the State of Utah. These are
not cow trails. These are the kinds of roads which we have.
In the memo of understanding, it can only deal with a maintained,
documented, continuously used road that is not in a national park,
wilderness, wilderness study area, national refuge, et cetera, et
cetera.
The issue that was brought up by the gentleman from Oregon is one
that was a misunderstanding. They objected to a 2477 that was
supposedly on private property, but it was actually a county easement
to which they were objecting. It had nothing to do with 2477 because
2477 roads cannot by definition be on private property.
When I was Speaker of the House 10 years ago in the State of Utah, we
started this process. I was fortunate enough to appropriate money so
that every county could research their 2477 claims. Today, the State of
Utah is ready to give documented history photo, hard evidence of
continuous use on every single one of these roads. The State of Utah
has put in work, effort, and money to end the contention of 30 years
and provide a process study, my colleagues know what it is, a process
study that just took 30 seconds off my time for me not to get the words
out.
The bottom line is the Taylor amendment allows this work to continue.
So these roads which cross rural Utah and provide access to national
parks and recreation, and jobs, and for emergency vehicles in rural
Utah, will continue on. The Udall amendment, unintentionally or not,
brings this to a screeching halt with the mere promise that the
gentleman from Colorado can help us find a better methodology than the
one we are presently going through right now.
The Taylor amendment would allow us to study the rule to which the
gentleman from Colorado objects while the work is still continuing on
to see if this actually works for the benefit of a standard for every
other State in this Nation, whereas the Udall amendment would frustrate
the time and effort. Perhaps that is why the counties in Colorado and
in the State of Utah are asking you, please, to support the Taylor
perfecting amendment, because it allows us to continue on.
If the Taylor amendment is defeated and the Udall amendment is
passed, the only thing left for the counties in the State of Utah is to
go to court and continue to waste taxpayer money on expensive
litigation when we have a process, not perfect, but we are still
working on it, a process in mind to go at these types of roads which
are clearly roads, which can solve the problem in the future.
We beg of you to let the process that we have started go to fruition.
We can look at it. We can evaluate it. But to capriciously simply say
the man-hours and the public input and the dollars have been in vain to
this day is unfair to the State of Utah. The gentleman from North
Carolina (Chairman Taylor) clearly understands that and has given us a
process so that we can evaluate this rule and, at the same time, doing
no harm to the State of Utah.
I beg of my colleagues to help support this particular provision. It
moves us forward towards solving a very contentious problem without
having to go to the courts.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 1
minute.
In closing, I want to make three points. I want to urge the House to
preserve its institutional prerogatives to make sure that we are making
the law and we are supporting the law we passed in the past by
supporting the Udall amendment.
Second, I understand what Utah has done; and there are some good
steps forward as my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Bishop), has pointed out. But this is not just about Utah; it is
about the entire West and wherever these claims can be made.
Finally, my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Taylor), is on the right track; but under his perfecting amendment, we
leave out private lands, military lands, national forest lands, tribal
lands, national conservation areas, public lands generally, areas of
critical environmental concern, wild and scenic rivers, and national
trails, an enormously important list.
Please vote against the Taylor secondary amendment and support the
Udall amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this debate,
and we are talking about Utah; but this proposal by the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall) probably affects Alaska more than any other State
in the Union.
We had some agreements. We are talking about the law, and to the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), your father agreed to it that we
would have and shall have access across the lands. The Udall amendment
probably would prohibit that, overriding another law; and that disturbs
me a great deal.
Now, we do not have the roads that we are showing in Utah; we have
mostly dog trails, the snow machine trails now. Trails are used from
village to village across, yes, wilderness lands. If the gentleman from
Colorado will look at that map, he will see that his father did a great
job.
Most of our State lands intercede with Federal lands, and we cannot
get across those. We are trying to preserve this right to cross those
lands and utilize those trails for which they were established. I am
quite concerned that even with the second-degree amendment, I am not
sure that we will have that right. We would have to probably go to
court again. But I am suggesting the second-degree is better than the
Udall amendment, and we ought to look at this.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) had a good point.
Eventually, we will decide this and let people understand that there
are rights of States, and the 1976 law grandfathered all the rights-of-
way in. That was the extinguishment of FLPMA. I was here and I believe
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) was here at that time too; he
may not have been. But that was the agreement that was made.
We have to keep those agreements. We cannot continue to break those
agreements we made just because it helps a certain interest group. I
keep stressing that. Most of the people promoting this provision now do
not know the institutional history of what the Congress did and why we
did it.
Now, the RS 2477 was for a reason. Most communities established these
rights-of-way and the roads that developed their communities. In our
case, it was dog trails and a lot of other things that happened during
the wintertime, and that is how we got from one community to another
community. We ought to be able to continue that as a State's right.
So keep in mind as we go forward with this that we understand what we
are doing and the laws that this Congress passed in the past. I urge
the adoption of the second-degree amendment and defeat of the first-
degree amendment, and then let us try to adjust it as we go through.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the
committee, for an observation.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to observe, we have just
been told by the distinguished chairman that we ought to keep our word
when we make deals. If that were the case, this bill would contain $570
million more for the conservation programs that this committee and the
Congress agreed that they would fund at that level 3 years ago.
So if we want to keep deals, let us start with the big one, baby. Let
us start with the one that guarantees that we are going to provide the
$570 million that this House said it was going to provide 3 years ago
when it was avoiding an entitlement.
[[Page H7100]]
The gentleman from Alaska was the sponsor of CARA; and we all signed
on to, as a substitute to CARA instead, to provide a guaranteed funding
level for those conservation programs.
{time} 2245
So I do not want to hear any lectures, not this late at night, about
keeping our word, for God's sake. Start with that one.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CANNON. You realize we have 5 million acres in the BLM excess
land fund. We would love to sell those acres and fund the land and
water conservation deal.
Mr. OBEY. What does that have to do with keeping your word?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), for yielding me time.
I just wanted to respond to my good friend, the gentleman from Alaska
(Mr. Young), who I know had great affection for my father and my father
had great affection for him.
There is nothing in my amendment that would affect the access rights
provided under the Alaska Lands Act, the law that was sponsored by my
father, as my good friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young),
mentioned. There is nothing in this amendment that would affect the
access rights; and I take that legislation very seriously and would do
everything in my power and will do everything in my power to continue
to support, to keep the faith of that language.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am just concerned that the way it is written
it precludes what we made an agreement to. If I can be assured later on
we will discuss it as time goes by.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Reclaiming my time, I look forward to
discussing that further with the gentleman. I thank him for his
comment.
I would urge a yes vote on the Udall amendment, and I rise in
opposition to the Taylor second degree amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start out by thanking the
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Taylor), for his work on this issue. It is a very important issue,
obviously, an issue that has some intensity.
I thought about asking unanimous consent to lower the temperature on
the floor here by 8 degrees. I think that would be very helpful, since
it seems to be about 78, as opposed to 70.
This has been a very important issue to us in Utah in particular, and
as a matter of policy we appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina's
(Mr. Taylor) involvement in the issue of policy.
I would also like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Gilchrest), who probably has done more reading on this issue than
anybody else in this room and has drawn conclusions that he has
presented, I think, very eloquently earlier.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his
thoughtful words on this issue.
I would also like to thank the proponent of this issue, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Udall), who is someone with whom you can disagree
without being disagreeable. We disagree stridently on this issue,
dramatically on this issue, but it is in an environment in which we can
talk, and I appreciate that.
The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) talked about this as a back-
room agreement. It is not a back-room agreement. The gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette) talked about this as an archaic, arcane and
arbitrary rule or law. That is what you call a law you do not like. But
the fact is we have law in America.
I have been interested to follow the debate of several people on the
Democratic side here. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) talked
about our institutional prerogatives in Congress. The gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Matheson) said it is time for Congress to do its job. The
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) talked about continuing to work
to find the solution to this problem.
But, in fact, this is not a congressional problem. It is true we have
oversight, we have responsibility for these kind of issues, but we have
law in place already. And that law delegates certain authorities to the
Department of the Interior. And in the context of that delegated law,
the Department of Interior has entered into an agreement.
It is an open agreement. It is not a back-room agreement. It is an
agreement that was precipitated by the National Association of
Counties, of which every single Member of this body has counties that
are part of that group. That is not a group that is hiding the ball or
doing something in the back room. That is a group that wanted to create
a process that we could start and evaluate as we used it to come to the
point of understanding whether or not we could solve these problems in
the context of law.
If that process got out of hand or something radically wrong
happened, we could step in and resolve that process. Because,
ultimately, that is our prerogative as Congress.
It is an emotional issue that is very intense to me.
Let me point out this is not a problem with Utah. We have a letter
from what is called The Club of 20 which are 22 counties on the western
slope in Colorado who have sent a letter to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Taylor) supporting his amendments.
May I just suggest if you look at what the Taylor amendment does, it
takes what I think is an egregious step in taking away the proper
authority from the Department of the Interior and brings back into
context what we should be doing, as a matter of oversight, what we
should be doing to express ourselves to protect the interests that are
of such great concern to Americans. And that is it allows the process
that has been set up by the Department of the Interior and the State of
Utah to go forward.
It does that in the context of protection. It protects national
refuges, national wildlife refuges. It protects wilderness study areas.
It protects wilderness areas. It protects national parks. It protects
monuments.
We cannot protect private property. May I just suggest that all the
discussion about private property misses the point? We should not be
creating national policy in the context of nasty neighbors.
RS-2477 rights exist in the context of law and have to be resolved at
the proper level and not here. So we can do nothing about the private
property issue. And, in fact, the memorandum of understanding, the MOU,
between the Department of the Interior and Utah does not allow for the
disclaimer to be used in the context of any road over private property.
It is only to be used in the context of the roads that you saw that my
colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop) showed with his picture.
Let me point out that Utah is different from some other parts of the
country. I was the Associate Solicitor in the Interior Department for
some period of time in charge of coal mining reclamation. I probably
have been in more coal mines than everybody else in this group put
together, and I have seen the devastation in the Northeast of the
United States. We built our economy on the devastation of the coal
mining lands in Kentucky and West Virginia and Virginia and Tennessee
and other areas.
But you cannot find a coal mine in Utah without a map, and the reason
you cannot find a coal mine in Utah is because we have been careful
about how we have used our public lands.
I grew up in an area called Wayne County, to some degree. One of my
favorite areas in Utah, they call it Wayne Wonderland. I once walked
five miles down a ditch that our ancestors had dug to get some water to
a lousy 200 acres of land, a beautiful 200 acres of land, and they did
it with great sweat and pain and suffering because they loved the land
and wanted to produce on it.
We have used the land in Utah, I think, well; and I think that our
record
[[Page H7101]]
of the environment stands up to anyone's scrutiny.
I suggest to this body that this memorandum of understanding is
appropriate, and it should not be interfered with by this amendment. I
urge a vote of yes on the Taylor amendment perfecting the Udall
amendment and a vote of no on the underlying amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Udall
Amendment to stop the giveaway of important public resources.
It seems that the giveaway of public lands is not just limited to the
1872 Mining Law. How ironic is it that we have a provision from another
mining law--this one from 1866--that is being used to swindle the
American public out of their public lands.
We have people and organizations out there that are trying to take
advantage of a law enacted 137 years ago that was so antiquated that
Congress repealed it in 1976.
Let us be clear on this outdated and repealed law that is known as RS
2477. It is a land grab. This is not about clearing up legitimate
claims to roads that you or l or the American public would recognize.
It is about bulldozing new roads across unspoiled public lands.
Cowpaths and trails that begin and end nowhere are being claimed as
roads and Interior Secretary Norton and her Department are attempting
to use new regulations for previously noncontroversial Disclaimers of
Interest to breathe life into RS 2477 and facilitate a public land
grab.
When then Interior Secretary Babbitt tried to develop a clear, common
sense settlement to the RS 2477 issue in the 1990's, Republicans would
have none of it and pushed through a legislative moratorium that
remains in effect today on any regulations pertaining to RS 2477.
However, Secretary Norton and her Department have chosen to ignore
the law and press ahead with these new regulations on Disclaimers of
Interest.
Disobedience of the law and secret backroom deals; that has been the
legacy of this administration on RS 2477.
It's time we put a stop to the unwarranted and unjustified giveaway
of public assets. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Udall amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Taylor) will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: an amendment by the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee); an amendment by the gentleman from Nebraska
(Mr. Bereuter); an amendment to the Udall amendment by the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor); and an amendment by the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. The
remaining electronic votes in this series will be conducted as 5-minute
votes.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185,
noes 234, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 386]
AYES--185
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boucher
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--234
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Schrock
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Berman
Bonilla
Burgess
Carter
Evans
Ferguson
Gephardt
Gordon
Granger
Janklow
Jefferson
Johnson, Sam
Millender-
McDonald
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass) (during the vote). Members are
[[Page H7102]]
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 2314
Messrs. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, JONES of North Carolina, HEFLEY, and
RYAN of Wisconsin changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. GERLACH, CAPUANO and FORD changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Bereuter
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 12 offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Bereuter) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 362,
noes 57, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 387]
AYES--362
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Bartlett (MD)
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOES--57
Barrett (SC)
Bass
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Bonner
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Cannon
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Crane
Culberson
Cunningham
DeLay
DeMint
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Goode
Graves
Hart
Hayes
Hensarling
Herger
Hunter
Istook
Kingston
Kolbe
Lewis (CA)
McCrery
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Ose
Pence
Reynolds
Rohrabacher
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Souder
Stearns
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Toomey
Vitter
Wamp
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Berman
Bonilla
Burgess
Carter
Evans
Ferguson
Gephardt
Granger
Gutierrez
Janklow
Jefferson
Johnson, Sam
Millender-McDonald
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this
vote.
{time} 2322
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
Mr. FLAKE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Taylor of North Carolina to Amendment No. 1
Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Taylor) to amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226,
noes 194, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 388]
AYES--226
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
[[Page H7103]]
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--194
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--14
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Berman
Bonilla
Burgess
Carter
Evans
Ferguson
Gephardt
Granger
Janklow
Jefferson
Johnson, Sam
Millender-
McDonald
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this
vote.
{time} 2331
Mr. FORD changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CRENSHAW and Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), as amended.
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004''.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Interior
Appropriations bill as it stands now. It is impossible for me to vote
in support of this bill because it provides tremendous decreases in
funding for critical programs, which benefit all Americans. Just a few
weeks ago the Republican majority enacted a massive tax cut for the
wealthy but today they cut funding and broke promises for important
programs that people care about and depend on.
This Republican bill recklessly abandons the historic, bipartisan
conservation funding agreement that was made in 2000. With this 2000
agreement, the U.S. Congress made a bipartisan commitment to the
America people for a $12 billion investment in conservation, urban
parks, clean air and water over the next six years. This funding was
intended to preserve and protect the great lands and natural treasures
of our country--from savings endangered species to helping local
communities with their conservation and recreation programs through
creative partnerships that ensuring American families can visit and
appreciate our national park for generations.
Specifically, this bill seriously underfunds programs that create
parks and open spaces, protect wilderness and wetlands, preserve
wildlife habitat, and enhance recreational opportunities. In my
district, we have the College Point Sport Complex, which provides 22
acres in sports fields and recreational green spaces for the diverse
community that lives in the Queens. College Point Sports Complex is
only one example of the thousands of urban parks throughout America
that provide a break in the urban landscape. However, this bill
provides no funding for the urban parks program--breaking the 2000
commitment to the people.
The impact of breaking this commitment with America goes even farther
by underfunding the Forest Legacy Program and the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, which help states preserve forest lands threatened
by development and allow for the greater protection of open space.
Unfortunately, this bill is a mere fig leaf which leaves the natural
treasures of our great nation vulnerable to profit-hungry logging and
timber contracts, developers, miners and others who do not care about
the green space of your community.
Additionally, this does not adequately fund the Department of
Energy's low-income weatherization program. This program provides
weatherization for families who live near or below the Federal poverty
line. Each home that is weatherized will generate $275 in annual
savings for a family that desperately needs the money for other
essentials. However, this bill provides flat-funding for this program
and leaves American families in the cold. In Queens and the Bronx, New
York, we need this weatherization program, which keeps the low-income
families and seniors warm in the winter. But again, if you are not a
millionaire, you are forgotten by this Republican Congress and this
Bush Administration.
Finally, this legislation rejects the idea of providing modest
pragmatic increases for the National Endowment for the Arts. One year
ago roll call votes demonstrated favorable support for such increases
and yet when push comes to shove, the NEA is funded thirty percent
below the Fiscal Year 1994 levels. The NEA has implemented all of the
reforms requested by Congress and its programs provided arts education
and opportunities for communities throughout America, including a
number of programs in my district such as the Bronx Council for the
Arts.
From Urban Parks and environmental protections to weatherization
projects and arts and culture programs--this bill breaks the commitment
Congress made to America. And for this reason I cannot vote for this
bill. I cannot break my promise with a clear conscience.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2691, the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 2004.
I am pleased to inform my colleagues that the bill meets its allocation
established under the Section 302(b) suballocation for the Interior
subcommittee.
H.R. 2691 provides $19.627 billion in budget authority and $19.400
billion in outlays--increases over the President's requested funding
level of $72 million and $132 million respectively. Over the last four
years, funding for this appropriations bill has increased at an amount
rate of 6.3 percent.
budget compliance
I am pleased to report that the bill is consistent with section
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration
of bills in excess of a subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. However, I
would note that the bill contains a change to one mandatory program
that generates $30 million in savings to offset discretionary spending.
If this provision were stricken, the bill would exceed its allocation.
In addition, two transfers within the bill violate section 306 of the
Congressional Budget Act. The bill designates as an emergency two
transfers--one for the emergency replacement of property owned by the
Department, the other for combating wildfires on Department land--with
the intent of exempting the costs from the budget resolution. Such
designations are unnecessary because the transfers will not change the
total amount of appropriated budget authority. Even had there been a
cost associated with these provisions, the language as written exempted
them from the now expired
[[Page H7104]]
statutory spending caps, not from the budget resolution; hence the
budget resolution limits would still have applied. While the
subcommittee could have attempted to declare these sections as
emergencies under Section 502 of the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget
Resolution, it also should have included an explanation in its
committee report explaining the manner in which these provisions meet
the criteria of an emergency.
Because these provisions have no budgetary effect, I am not going to
object. However, I would note to this subcommittee and other committees
and subcommittees contemplating emergency designations to refer to
section 502 of this year's budget resolution. More importantly under
the terms of the budget resolution, emergencies should be essential,
quickly coming into being, requiring immediate action, unforeseen, and
temporary in nature.
H.R. 2691 also rescinds $20 million of rescissions of previously
enacted BA. The bill contains an advance appropriation of $36 million
for payments under the Elk Hills School lands fund settlement
agreement. The advance appropriation is included in the list of
anticipated advance appropriations under section 301 of the Budget
Resolution.
conservation spending
Finally, there will be much discussion during the debate about the
subcommittee's decision not to provide spending on conservation
programs at the level established under the Conservation Spending Cap.
While there is an overall limit on conservation spending through fiscal
year 2006, the underlying law enforcing this limit expired last fall.
This means there is no way to limit conservation-related appropriations
to the capped levels.
In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2691 which is so
important to the economic and environmental health of many of our rural
communities.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the Chairman
of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, for their exceptional work in bringing this bill to the
Floor.
This Member recognizes that extremely tight budgetary constraints
made the job of the Subcommittee much more difficult this year.
Therefore, the Subcommittee is to be commended for its diligence in
creating such a fiscally responsible measure. In light of these
budgetary pressures, this Member would like to express his appreciation
to all the members of the Subcommittee and formally recognize that the
Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 includes funding for
two projects that are of great importance to Nebraska.
This Member is very pleased that the bill includes $400,000 from the
U.S. Geological Survey-Biological Division for the new fish and
wildlife cooperative research unit established in FY2003 at the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This Member had been requesting funding
for this cooperative research unit each year since 1990! The University
of Nebraska and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission have already
committed funds and facilities for the unit, but the Federal funding is
needed to make it a reality.
Nebraska's strategic location presents several very special research
opportunities, particularly relating to the large number of migratory
birds that visit our state each year via the Central Flyway. However,
Nebraska is one of the few states without a fish and wildlife
cooperative research unit within the state. Locating a cooperative
research unit in Nebraska to develop useful information relating to
these issues upon which to base critical management decisions is an
urgent need.
This Member is also pleased that Homestead National Monument of
America receives $350,000 to continue planning for a visitor facility.
This project received $300,000 in planning funds in FY2003.
Homestead National Monument of America commemorates the lives and
accomplishments of all pioneers and the changes to the land and the
people as a result of the Homestead Act of 1862, which is recognized as
one of the most important laws in U.S. history. This Monument was
authorized by legislation enacted in 1936. The fiscal year 1996
Interior Appropriations legislation directed the National Park Service
to complete a General Management Plan to begin planning for
improvements at Homestead. The General Management Plan, which was
completed last year, made recommendations for improvements that are
needed to help ensure that Homestead is able to reach its full
potential as a place where Americans can more effectively appreciate
the Homestead Act and its effects upon this nation.
Homestead National Monument of America is truly a unique treasure
among the National Park Service jewels. The authorizing legislation
makes it clear that Homestead was intended to have a special place
among Park Service units. According to the original legislation:
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to
lay out said land in a suitable and enduring manner so that
the same may be maintained as an appropriate monument to
retain for posterity a proper memorial emblematic of the
hardships and the pioneer life through which the early
settlers passed in the settlement, cultivation, and
civilization of the great West. It shall be his duty to erect
suitable buildings to be used as a museum in which shall be
preserved literature applying to such settlement and
agricultural implements used in bringing the western plains
to its present state of high civilization, and to use the
said tract of land for such other objects and purposes as in
his judgment may perpetuate the history of this country
mainly developed by the homestead law.
Clearly, this authorizing legislation sets some lofty goals. The
funding included in this bill will begin the process of realizing these
goals.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, this Member is pleased that funding was
allocated for the National Endowment for the Humanities program
entitled, ``We the People.'' This initiative is designed to promote a
broad understanding of the ideas and events that have shaped our
nation. The ``We the People'' program will support the study of our
nation's history, institutions and culture. The state humanities
councils will play a large role in this effort and receive substantial
resources from it. A number of the programs undertaken by the Nebraska
Humanities Council are examples of the programs which are expected to
be included in ``We the People.'' These include the Great Plains
Chatauqua on Lewis and Clark, the Capitol Forum, and their Speaker's
Bureau.
Again Mr. Chairman, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the Chairman of the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks), the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for
their support of projects which are important to Nebraska and the 1st
Congressional District.
This Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 2691.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of
this amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill to expand funding
for the low-income weatherization program and other important energy
efficiency programs. I urge all my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Weatherization programs help all Americans in all areas of the
country, from those congressional districts with hot, sweltering
summers to my Third Congressional District of Wisconsin, which as you
know experiences long, bitter cold winters. During this year of
unprecedented rising energy prices, it is important that this Congress
have an honest discussion of our nation's energy policy. Importantly,
this amendment shows the American people our dedication to energy
conservation measures.
Mr. Chairman, much of the focus on our current energy crisis has been
the rising price of crude oil and natural gas. But in my district and
throughout the country, the price of heating oil has risen as much as
30 percent in the past year. Conservation efforts such as the
weatherization assistance program go a long way to helping us become
less dependent on foreign oil.
Mr. Chairman, the weatherization assistance program helps correct the
disproportionate energy burden faced by low-income Americans. The
program has helped make over five million homes more energy efficient
and the average home has seen heating savings of 23 percent. With many
low-income households spending over $1,200 on energy costs annually,
this energy efficiency savings can further help these families afford
the basic necessities of life. Mr. Speaker we do not want any of our
citizens having to make the difficult choice between food and fuel. I
urge my colleagues to support this measure.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the
Committee now rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Bass) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2691)
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 319, he reported the bill back
to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
[[Page H7105]]
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the 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 the passage of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on passage will
be followed by a 5-minute vote on the motion to instruct on H.R. 1308
offered by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 268,
nays 152, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 389]
YEAS--268
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney
Marshall
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--152
Ackerman
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Duncan
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Graves
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--14
Ballenger
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Berman
Bonilla
Burgess
Carter
Ferguson
Gephardt
Granger
Janklow
Jefferson
Johnson, Sam
Millender-
McDonald
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass) (during the vote). Members are
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 2350
Mr. OBERSTAR changed his 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.
____________________