[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.

                          ____________________