[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18598-18639]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2004

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). Pursuant to House Resolution 
319 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of

[[Page 18599]]

the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 2691.

                              {time}  1732


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
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, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
amendment by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) had been disposed 
of and the reading of the bill had progressed through page 154 line 13.


           Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico:
       Add at the end (before the short title) the following new 
     section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     by this Act may be used to finalize or implement the proposed 
     revisions to subpart A of part 219 of title 36, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, relating to National Forest System 
     Planning for Land and Resource Management Plans, as described 
     in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on 
     December 6, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 72770).

  The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved.
  Pursuant to the previous order of the House of today, the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) will control 15 minutes. The gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) will control 25 minutes. The gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to protect our 
national forests and ensure that they continue to be managed using 
long-standing scientific principles and practices. My amendment will 
stop a radical rewrite of 27 years of bipartisan forest management 
policy. It will prohibit the use of funds provided in this bill for the 
finalization or implementation of the Bush administration's proposed 
changes to the National Forest Management Act of 1976.
  The proposed regulations constitute a radical departure from current 
forest management policy, first adopted and implemented by Congress and 
the Reagan administration over 20 years ago. The proposed changes will 
greatly reduce the amount of environmental analysis, wildlife 
protection and public involvement currently required in the development 
and revision of forest management plans. Many of these changes reflect 
the so-called timber industry wish list.
  In at least eight specific instances, the proposed regulations 
closely mirror policies favored by the timber industry. To name a few 
of these, the proposed recommendations eliminate ecological 
sustainability as the priority of the Forest Service; eliminate 
protections for wildlife; eliminate scientific oversight of agency 
actions; and eliminate most mandatory standards for forest management.
  These measures were designed to strengthen Forest Service 
accountability. The National Forest Management Act established new 
duties to conserve biological diversity, to ground management decisions 
in sound science, and to ensure extensive public participation 
opportunities in the forest planning process. The proposed regulations 
depart in a number of ways from sound forest management policy that has 
existed for the past 6 administration.
  First, the Bush administration's regulations would effectively exempt 
forest management plans from the National Environmental Policy Act, 
NEPA, the Magna Carta of environmental law.
  Second, the administration's proposed rules would eliminate the 
requirements to maintain viable populations of native wildlife.
  Third, the changes would increase the likelihood of harmful logging 
projects based on multiple use values.
  Fourth, the administration's proposal would also reduce overall 
environmental standards and accountability by allowing management plans 
to be revised to accommodate individual projects.
  Finally, I believe that these changes would drastically limit public 
involvement. The opportunity to request an administrative review or 
file an appeal would be severely curtailed. These changes would 
eliminate sound science as a basis for forest management.
  The proposed regulations were developed without a Committee of 
Scientists, a statutorily-authorized body that has informed the 
development of every other change in NFMA regulations since their 
inception.
  The administration's dismissal of the principles of sound science and 
NEPA highlights its contempt for public involvement and scientific 
input. The recommendations of the independent Committee of Scientists 
have guided every rewrite of the NFMA regulations since 1979.
  Ronald Reagan used a team of scientists to write the original 
regulations. Three years ago, Bill Clinton revised the regulations with 
significant input from scientists. If it was good enough for President 
Reagan and good enough for President Clinton, why does President Bush 
insist on throwing science out the window? Because the scientists will 
not give him the answers his timber industry friends want.
  These proposed regulations were developed with maximum input from the 
timber industry and minimum input from the American public and the 
scientific community. The proposed regulations have received widespread 
editorial opposition from newspapers around the Nation. These 
regulations were also strongly opposed by the environmental community, 
sportsmen's groups, Republicans for Environmental Protections, and 
members of the Committee of Scientists.
  In the public comment process, 325 scientist from across the Nation 
are urging the Forest Service to withdraw the proposed regulations, and 
over 100,000 citizens have submitted comments urging withdrawal of 
these regulations. Given the administration's refusal to adequately 
consult the scientific community, let alone listen to its comments, 
Congress must intervene and stop this flawed and environmentally 
damaging rulemaking.
  I strongly urge all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to 
join me in supporting and maintaining sound principles of forest 
management.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, rise in opposition to this amendment.
  This funding limitation would stop changes to the National Forest 
Management Act planning regulations. This is a bad amendment, and that 
is the best thing I can say about it.
  National forest planning has become an endless gridlock which needs 
to be fixed. This administration is trying to make appropriate changes. 
If this amendment were adopted, the Forest Service would either 
continue to operate under the outdated 1982 planning regulations or 
begin to implement highly prescriptive and expensive 2000 planning 
regulations.
  The 1982 planning regulations require the Forest Service to use 
unnecessary analytical processes and implement outdated science 
requirements. Under the old forest planning regulations, it takes an 
average of 5 to 6 years to complete a forest plan at a cost of $5 to $6 
million each. Now, this is much too long. And, in fact, it is not a 
plan effort. It is not a scientific move. It is an effort to stop all 
harvesting in the forest, and we know that this amendment would delay 
forest projects which are now needed to clean up our forests and

[[Page 18600]]

reduce the danger of fire, the real problems with fire that has been 
exaggerated in many ways by the lack of scientific forest management 
throughout the country, especially in the West.
  This amendment would require national forests to be managed under 
plans that are clearly out of date, waste money on out-of-date planning 
methods, and are designed just to stop harvests altogether. So I 
certainly hope you will join me in defeating this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) and commend the gentleman for his 
attention to the important issue of forest health and the protection of 
our public lands. The amendment applies to U.S. Forest Service managed 
lands which support 17 percent of Federally endangered and threatened 
species.
  In November, 2002, the Bush administration proposed a radical and 
sweeping rewrite of the forest policy that has governed the Nation 
since shortly after passage of the National Forest Management Act, 
NFMA, in 1976. The changes would eliminate or seriously weaken vital 
safeguards for 155 national forests in the United States and that were 
put in place by the Reagan administration.
  I served under President Reagan, and I can tell you in this one case 
I was very pleased that he used science in order to make a 
determination on these forests plans.
  Now the Bush administration, however, attempts to allow forest plans 
to be exempted from the analysis of their environmental impacts as 
required by NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. It seeks to do 
away with the rule that requires the Forest Service to maintain native 
species of wildlife in each national forest. The proposed regulations 
try to make surveying wildlife merely optional.
  In addition, the draft would reduce the role of scientists and 
monitoring in forest planning. Extensive requirements for independent 
scientific review and consultation in the development of forest plans 
would be eliminated and replaced with optional provisions of including 
scientists in the process. The effect of these regulations would be to 
virtually eliminate scientific review of forest plans.
  Public participation is greatly restricted in the forest planning 
process. The rule would discount petitions, cards and other methods 
citizens use to contact their government. Also, this plan would halt 
the appeals process allowed under current rules.
  The Udall amendment would limit the Bush administration reductions to 
the National Forest Management Act. The new regulations are the wrong 
policy to maintain and preserve our national forests.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support the Udall 
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 time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think what we 
are going through is more of the same, and that is to protect an effort 
that is being made to protect a broken system. What is in place right 
now is a bureaucratic system of red tape that makes it nearly 
impossible to move forward.

                              {time}  1745

  Forest plans, which must by law be rewritten every 15 years, often 
take between 7 to 10 years to draft and implement. For example, the 
forest plan on the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota took 
over 7 years to complete. The Tongass forest plan in Alaska took 9 
years to complete. That is right, 9 years to complete a 15-year forest 
plan. Both cost millions of dollars to go through the process.
  It is a broken system. It is what we are trying to fix. The 11th-hour 
regulations that were adopted by the previous administration do not 
work, and what the administration is trying to do is update those 
regulations so they represent what the reality is today, and that is 
the effort that is being made. I think that this amendment completely 
undermines the ability to do that.
  Charges that recent Forest Service-proposed regulations weaken 
essential wildlife protections are absurd. The proposed regulations 
offered two options for wildlife analysis on which the Forest Service 
conducted a national workshop to solicit the views of leading wildlife 
experts from around the country. The focus of this effort has been to 
make wildlife analysis more useful to the public and decision-makers.
  Charges that the 2002 draft weakens public involvement are also 
unfounded. The draft regulations provide for public involvement at 
every single step. They preserve appeal opportunities like those in the 
2000 regulations and go well beyond the baseline requirements of NEPA. 
More timely planning will further facilitate effective public 
participation.
  The bottom line is that we do need this a lot faster. It is 
absolutely outrageous that we would spend 9 years going through the 
bureaucratic process, 9 years going through the bureaucratic process to 
adopt a 15-year plan. How outrageous is that? Only in Washington would 
somebody move to try to preserve that.
  If there are problems with the current system, participate in 
rewriting those regulations. Have your input put in that, but do not 
try to go back to a broken system. That is outrageous, and I have no 
idea why anyone would possibly want to do that.
  We need to streamline the system. We need to move a lot quicker. We 
need to make it more efficient and more responsive to the public and 
our constituents. Trying to go back to a broken system makes absolutely 
no sense.
  I oppose the amendment. I support the underlying bill, and I would 
ask my colleagues to oppose the Udall amendment.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The gentleman from California uses an example of a forest plan where 
he says it took 9 years to plan to put together a 15-year plan. We are 
not in any way trying to protect an inefficient, ineffective process. 
The bureaucrats have to get their act together. For the most part, for 
the most part, forest planning saves the taxpayer money. It saves time 
and it allows the public input, and what we are objecting to here is 
the public is being cut out of the process with these regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva), a valuable member of the Committee on Resources, a leader on 
these important forest management issues.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I rise today to urge my 
colleagues to vote for the Udall amendment and also to thank the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) for this very thoughtful 
amendment that continues the protection of our national forests.
  The national forests are owned by all the citizens of the United 
States. Our forests provide places for families to camp, hike, fish, 
and mountain bike. They are increasingly under demand for recreation as 
our cities grow and open space is at a premium. Forests provide not 
only recreational opportunities but also clean water for cities and 
habitat for wildlife.
  Because Americans enjoy forests so much for all their values, they 
also want to participate in the planning for their management. They 
want to have a voice in determining that forests are available for 
recreation, that habitat is provided for wildlife, and that everyone is 
accommodated. For decades citizens have participated in forest 
planning, and forests are better for it.
  But the Bush administration would prefer the citizens stay out of the 
process, making it easier for big timber companies to log and mining 
companies to drill. This is wrong. The Bush administration's 
regulations are giving away environmental protection and public 
participation in the name of helping the timber industry and others to 
get what they want first, but they do not own the forests. The American 
people own the forests.

[[Page 18601]]

  The administration's regulations are a bad deal for the environment, 
a bad deal for citizens; and I would urge people to vote ``yes'' on the 
gentleman from New Mexico's (Mr. Udall) amendment to suspend full 
funding for the new Bush administration's regulations on forest 
management.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to engage the gentleman from New Mexico, the sponsor of 
the amendment, in a couple of questions.
  First of all, one of the assertions here that bothers me the most, 
having lived through the spotted owl issue in the Pacific Northwest, is 
that there seems to be an indication here that science is not favored 
in the development of this rule. We have a group of scientists who 
write to the USDA Forest Service planning rule saying as scientists 
with expertise and conservation, biology and fish and wildlife 
management, we are writing to express our concern over the proposed 
National Forest Management Act, and they go on. We request that you 
reinstate the 2000 rule that received very thoughtful input by 
scientists and the public.
  We would like to respond as specifically to three assertions 
underlying the proposed 2002 rule change that, on examination, turned 
out to be false.
  One, that monitoring an assessment of the species level cost too 
much. It seems that if we are going to have multiple use and if we are 
going to protect the forests, that one of the things that has to be 
done under any circumstance is monitoring an assessment of the 
condition of the species. What would the gentleman have to say about 
that?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Washington, and first let me say that the ranking member from 
Washington, and my good friend, has shown very strong support for this 
amendment. He has given me guidance on getting this amendment through 
the appropriations process, and his leadership on this important 
environmental issue is very much appreciated.
  The point he makes with regard to science and what he is talking 
about is making sure that there is scientific input, that there is 
public input in this process; and what we are talking about today with 
these proposed regulations is they have swept the public out of the 
system. They have swept the scientists out of the system.
  As the gentleman from Washington knows, the planning process includes 
everybody; and if we sweep these people aside, we are then going to 
have inefficient forest plans. We are going to have forest plans where 
people are going to sue under them, and we are going to waste a lot of 
time and money.
  So I think the gentleman makes a very good, solid point.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is what concerns me 
here. We have been through the Endangered Species Act, the listing of 
these species. If we are now going to wipe the scientists out as we 
develop these forest plans and not take into account their input, we 
are just going to open ourselves up again to additional listings under 
the Endangered Species Act.
  The one thing I found in the Northwest was we had to base our 
decisions on science, science, science. They had to be scientifically 
credible, legally defensible.
  I worry that without public input, without scientific input, letting 
the agencies do what they want in the name of expediency, that we are 
going to wind up with a lot of additional listings and then a lot of 
additional requirements to set aside acres for protection. We are going 
to get into the same mess we were in before. Because if we do not rely 
on science, if we do not do what is scientifically credible and legally 
defensible, I see us getting into worse shape than we are already in. 
That is what bothers me about what the administration has done.
  None of us like the fact that it takes 9 years or whatever amount of 
time, but that is because the administration, whoever is in charge, has 
not promptly dealt with these issues; and the concerns that are 
expressed by these scientists is that in 2000, during the Clinton 
administration, there was scientific input; and then we get the new 
administration, they walk away from science.
  All I think it is going to do is lead us back into trouble, back into 
more listings; and I do not see how that does anybody any good. It is 
the listings that cause the economic disruption and the problems in the 
communities. It is better to do these plans credibly, take the time, 
use the science and make sure we get something that can be sustained in 
the courts because, at some point, the biologist is going to be taken 
into court. He is going to be put on the stand, and he is going to say 
and the lawyers are going to ask, is this scientifically credible? The 
minute he says no, the judge is going to enjoin the plan. It is not 
going to do any good.
  By not using the credible science in the first place, trying to slip 
around this, I think we are making a terrible mistake, and I think we 
will be back here shortly saying we have got to redo this because it 
simply did not work.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield 
just a moment on that point, as the gentleman from Washington knows, 
one of the things that has happened here, this is not an amendment we 
have moved quickly on. We have given notice to this administration. The 
gentleman and I have signed a letter, over 100 Members of Congress have 
signed a letter to the President, Members from the other side of the 
aisle have signed a letter to the Secretary of Agriculture, calling for 
exactly what the gentleman is calling for, scientific input on these 
regulations. When they ignored these letters, when they ignored the 
request, our only avenue was to work with the gentleman and his 
appropriations bill to stop this process so that we could get 
scientific review.
  Mr. DICKS. Again, I just think it is important for us to understand 
why we are coming here with this limitation is because of the failure, 
frankly, of the administration to take into account the concerns that 
have been expressed by the Congress, by the scientists, by the outside 
groups, and I just think it is a terrible mistake, and I urge strong 
support for the Udall amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  A few weeks ago, we passed legislation that would stop the disastrous 
fires. It will take a long period of time. It will take management 
plans to be implemented to get rid of the crowded undergrowth and stop 
the fires that are costing us billions of dollars and burning up tens 
of millions of acres of our forests.
  Let me tell my colleagues, these forest plans, and there are 40 
forest plan revisions under way, 36 of these plans are more than 15 
years old. Unless regulations are changed, 52 more are expected to go 
beyond the 15-year limit in the next decade. We cannot make any 
progress in fighting fires, stopping fires, not having to spend the 
money and the millions of dollars unless we get plans that are going to 
take less than 15 years, and yet most of these plans are going to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat hesitant to wade into this 
debate because I am somewhat new to it, and I want to agree with the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), and I rise in opposition to 
this amendment.
  He talked about the millions of acres and the millions of dollars. 
Essentially, if we boil this debate down that we are having right now, 
the proponents of this amendment are saying the status quo is just 
fine. Let me tell my colleagues, the status quo is not fine. Let me 
give my colleagues some of the reasons. Let me give my colleagues some 
of the reasons why the status quo is not acceptable. It is not about 
millions of dollars. It is not even about millions of acres of wasted 
forest. Let me give my colleagues some of the reasons:

[[Page 18602]]

  Kathi Beck, 24, Eugene, Oregon; Tami Bickett, 25, Powell Butte, 
Oregon; Scott Blecha, 27, Clatskanie, Oregon; Levi Brinkley, 22, Burns, 
Oregon; Robert Browning, no age given, of Savannah, Georgia; Doug 
Dunbar, 23, of Redmond, Oregon; Terri Hagen, 28, Prineville, Oregon; 
Bonnie Holtby, 21 years old, Prineville, Oregon; Rob Johnson, 26, 
Redmond, Oregon.

                              {time}  1800

  John Kelso, 27, Prineville, Oregon; Don Mackey, 34, Hamilton, 
Montana; Roger Roth, 30, McCall, Idaho; James Thrash, 44, McCall, 
Idaho; Richard Tyler, 33, Grand Junction, Colorado.
  Those are the young people. Those are the young people who lost their 
lives in one forest fire. And for people to come to the floor of this 
House and say the status quo is acceptable, that we can lose 23 forest 
firefighters in 1 year, 18 the year before, 17 the year before, 86 
young people in the last 4 years, I say the status quo is not 
acceptable. I say we have to move forward with healthy forest 
management.
  For people out in the West, they must be wondering, why does 
Washington continue to fiddle while our forests burn and our young 
forest firefighters die? No, Members, the status quo is not acceptable. 
How many more young people will have to die fighting these fires until 
we realize that we need real healthy forest management?
  It starts today. It starts with our vote on this amendment. Let us 
reject this amendment. Let us let the Forest Service do what it knows 
how to do best. Let us get honest plans going for these forests. Let us 
do it now.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  First of all, with all due respect, the forest plans do not have a 
lot to do with the funding that is necessary to deal with the important 
issues the gentleman is talking about. We are for trying to fund the 
programs that will improve forest health and allow us to deal with 
these fires. Our committee has appropriated a considerable amount of 
money, but having a good scientifically credible plan is crucial. It is 
not status quo. This is the kind of creative change that we have to 
have, and that is why I support the Udall amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have appropriated a great deal of money, and I 
appreciate the efforts of my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks), in that area. He has been a leader in that area. But time is 
not the only consideration here. If we have money in the vault for the 
next 15 years and it is not spent, then the fires will continue and the 
young lives will be lost.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
  This amendment would prevent the Forest Service from completing a 
much-needed amendment to the current outdated National Forest 
Management Act planning regulations. The current planning regulations 
were written over 21 years ago, and they need to be updated. The Forest 
Service is currently operating under the 1982 regulations. There have 
been significant developments in the science of active forest 
management, and revisions are needed to reflect these developments.
  One would think that environmental organizations that are supporting 
the amendment of the gentleman from New Mexico would understand that. 
We are operating a generation ago in terms of the technology that is 
available and in terms of the planning protocols that are available. 
The Society of American Foresters, an organization founded by Gifford 
Pinchot, agrees with us. They oppose this amendment. They support the 
efforts to revise the existing NFMA.
  The Forest Service is currently drowning in paperwork and red tape. 
They estimate that they spend more than 40 percent of their budget and 
personnel hours on planning and fighting court battles rather than in 
the forests. Let me repeat that. Of all the money that they have to 
spend, 40 percent of it does not go to helping our forests. It goes to 
paying for lawyers to fight lawsuits. It goes to paying for the 
bureaucracy to deal with the planning process.
  The proposed 2002 regulations would allow land managers to get more 
accomplished on the ground; and that is especially critical right now, 
as our public lands are currently in a grave forest health crisis and 
are in need of active management to restore them. We are facing 
problems in our forests not just with forest fires, which clearly is 
the most serious problem, but with disease and insect infestation all 
across the country, and we need to give them the tools to act promptly 
to save our forests, to prevent them from being burned down, to prevent 
them from being devoured by gypsy moths and pine bark beetles and a 
whole host of other insects.
  The proposed 2000 regulations protect wildlife and public 
involvement. The 2002 proposal offers two options to provide for 
biological diversity, which were presented and discussed at a national 
workshop involving wildlife experts and ecologists from across the 
country. The 2002 proposal provides opportunities for public input at 
every step in the planning process. Completing the 2002 regulations 
should be a top priority for everyone and anyone concerned about our 
national forests.
  The Forest Service is in the midst of evaluating public comments on 
the 2002 proposed rule. Halting this process would significantly delay 
the efforts to implement improvements on the old regulations. It 
currently takes 5 to 10 years to complete a forest plan under the old 
planning regulations. That is outrageous, it is irresponsible, and it 
indicates the kind of morass that the Forest Service finds itself in. 
These proposed rules would help to make sure that we can more promptly 
get that input from the public, input from environmental organizations, 
input from industry, input from local communities, input from everybody 
affected in this process and then act on it in a more timely fashion 
than 10 years down the road.
  If we were to identify a problem and say, well, 10 years from now we 
will get around to solving it, that would be an irresponsible way to 
handle things. The Forest Service's hands are tied. This amendment will 
keep them tied for a long time. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), one of our key members 
on the Committee on Resources, who has been here for the period of time 
while these regulations have evolved and I am sure has some real 
insight on this.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time; and I rise in support of this amendment.
  My colleagues want to argue that somehow to cut the public out of the 
process, to provide a public process that is discretionary is somehow 
going to help in the planning of our forests. Well, we passed a bill 
here to deal with fire. My colleagues want to keep talking about fire, 
but somehow they do not want to pass the bill. We sent it to the 
Senate. I do not agree with every provision in it, but where is the 
Senate bill?
  The fires are burning, we have a bill to address that, but now my 
colleagues want to use fire as an example to gut these regulations. We 
know what happens when the Forest Service does not involve the public 
or does not involve the scientists. We had a policy that almost 
destroyed the forests, either because they mindlessly cut down the 
forests and destroyed watersheds and destroyed streams, or they 
mindlessly did not deal with the forests and we built up such fuel 
loads that we lost them to catastrophic fires.
  Now, as a result of a public process, because communities are 
involved, individuals are involved that live in the

[[Page 18603]]

area, organizations that know about this and scientists who care about 
this, we have a comprehensive planning proposal that deals with these 
forests. These forests are not simplistic. These are complicated, huge 
watersheds and ecosystems, and that is what we have learned from the 
scientists.
  Now my colleagues want to throw the scientists out of the room and 
treat these forests and treat these watersheds and treat these 
ecosystems somehow in a simplistic fashion. There is more to a forest 
than just the treatment of the fuel load. There is more to the habitat 
protection. There is more to the species protection than that. That is 
why these regulations are in play.
  What the Bush administration is suggesting is that we just take a 
simplistic approach; and that if we take a simplistic approach, the 
first thing we will want to do is to cut the public out of the process. 
Well, the people in the communities that are impacted by these forests 
have a stake in it, they have an economic stake, they have a life-style 
stake, they have a standard of living stake, so they are concerned 
about those forests. But it would be much easier to cut them out of it. 
It should be in the direction of the forest manager as to whether he 
wants to let them in at this point or that point or the next point in 
the process.
  Public participation is not a luxury. It is a right in this country. 
It is important to developing good policy. And that is why we should 
support the Udall amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume to remind all of us that we spend millions of dollars 
in research. Science is going on in modern silviculture every year. We 
have forest research stations, we have private research stations, we 
have all our universities with schools of forestry participating in the 
science, and so it is working every day.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully rise in opposition to this 
amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Udall).
  There have been significant developments in science, adaptive 
management and the concept of sustainability within the Forest Service. 
However, the current regulations were written 30 years ago and are not 
adapting the new regulations as fast as we need to for the preservation 
of healthy forests. This amendment will prevent the Forest Service from 
modernizing its planning regulations under the National Forest 
Management Act by removing funding for the implementation of the 
proposed 2002 regulation.
  Now, I understand people that can oppose new and better techniques. I 
understand how we can have differences of opinion. But those who make 
accusations that the proposed 2002 regulations weaken wildlife 
protection and public involvement simply are not true. Read the bill. 
It is not true. It does allow for more attitudes to be considered, and 
that is healthy. It is healthy.
  Completing the 2002 regulations should be a priority, thus allowing 
land managers to get more accomplished on the ground. Our public lands 
face a grave forest health crisis and are in need of active management 
to restore them. If you support scientific forest management over red 
tape, you oppose this amendment, you let the regulations be written, 
you let them be implemented and then, if they are not doing what needs 
to be done, you correct them. But holding fast with regulations 30 
years old is not a way to manage our forests for a more healthy, 
sustainable environment, as well as industry, as well as those who love 
the outdoors.
  Oppose this amendment. Let us get on with changing the regulations to 
adapt sound science to our forests.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes 
to respond to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas.
  I think it is fair to say that the forest management plans that we 
have today, supplemented by sound science, if we moved in that 
direction, and we had been moving in that direction over the next 100 
years, we would not have the problems with the forest fires if we had 
gone through this process, this management process. That is why I think 
it is so offensive to us that support this amendment and are working on 
this that the scientists are cut out.
  That is why I would disagree with the gentleman when he says, let the 
regulations go into effect. If you let the regulations go into effect, 
we are going to find ourselves in court, we are going to find ourselves 
in a bollixed-up situation. We are going to hurt the forest management 
process.
  So that is why over 300 scientists have written to the administration 
and said, stop here. That is why over 100 Members of Congress on a 
bipartisan basis have said, involve the scientists before you finalize 
these regulations. And, really, what we are trying to do is say, stop, 
put in place good regulations based on sound science, and then you will 
not run into problems.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from Texas if he 
would like to respond.
  Mr. STENHOLM. I would, Mr. Chairman, because the gentleman is simply 
describing what we have been going through for the last 10, 15 years: 
litigation, difference of opinion. In the meantime, look at what is 
happening to our forests: infestation, forest fires out of control.
  What I hear the gentleman describing is what we have been doing. Let 
us try to make it work a little better, and that is what we are trying 
to do with the new regulations.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my point 
was that if we had been doing the planning for 100 years and if we had 
had science, we would not be where we are today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Rahall), the ranking member on the Committee on Resources. He 
knows these forest issues very well, and I appreciate his help on this.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's 
amendment. He has eloquently described the effort here, as well as has 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), a 
gentleman who does not get up on every amendment which has been offered 
today, but he has spoken strongly in favor of the amendment of the 
gentleman from New Mexico.
  I remind my colleagues regarding a letter cosigned by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and myself and some 100 other Members of 
the House to the President in March of this year. We wrote expressing 
our deep concern with the scope and the breadth of the initiatives 
undertaken by this administration. The cumulative effect of all of 
these proposals are to undermine or eliminate open decisionmaking, as 
we have already heard today, to eliminate accountability, eliminate 
resource protection, and limit opportunities for public and scientific 
input as well.
  On November 27, 2002, this administration proposed a NFMA planning 
role that renders the public process virtually meaningless, and that is 
what this amendment attempts to restore, public input and protection of 
our resources so every area is not just opened up for willy-nilly use 
or multiple use of our forest lands.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to Members' attention, and 
we have heard quite a few things from the other side of the aisle about 
all the scientists and sportsmen and everybody else who has engaged in 
this battle, and it is a very important battle, but I would like to 
read a letter addressed to the Secretary of Agriculture, Ms. Veneman, 
dated April 11, 2001.
  It says, ``The National Forest System supports a diverse array of 
forest and rangeland ecosystems and provides useful products, 
unparalleled recreational opportunities and other important

[[Page 18604]]

amenities. Today, the ability of the Forest Service to conserve and 
enhance these attributes is increasingly compromised by obstructionist 
administration appeals and legal challenges of proposed agency 
actions.''
  And the letter goes on to say scrap the 2000 and let us deal with a 
system that actually works.
  What we have heard from the gentleman from Washington, which I am in 
shock and awe that he would suggest that we stay with the status quo, 
as well as the gentleman from New Mexico, the proponent of this 
amendment, is they want a continuation of the same scientists that, in 
the gentleman from Washington's own State, 12 agency scientists got 
together in the Wenatchee National Forest and they said we have a great 
plan, let us put out a bunch of phony science here so we can lock up 
thousands of acres, put thousands of people out of work, maybe close 
down a few communities.
  I am sure the gentleman remembers the incident in Wenatchee National 
Forest where the scientists were looking for Canadian lynx. They could 
not find any, so they took little sticky pads, as is the normal 
scientific method, and placed them in the forest at rub areas and 
scratch areas so they could recognize or perhaps ascertain whether or 
not the lynx were there.
  The scientists could not find any. So what did they do? This is the 
science that they want to protect, the very scientists that these 
victims want to protect. So they go into the lab and they have a 
stuffed lynx in there from God knows where, and so they take hair off 
of it and they run around in the forest and put this hair on these 
little sticky pads and write a report that says obviously the lynx are 
there, and so now we have scientific data and scientific evidence to 
shut down this area from any kind of human activity, including the 
people who want to live and work in that area.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OTTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows I would never support 
that kind of science under any circumstances.
  Mr. OTTER. Is that not the status quo?
  Mr. DICKS. No, it is not. That was condemned by everybody on both 
sides of the aisle.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would conclude by 
saying we got no support from the gentleman from New Mexico or the 
gentleman from Washington when we wanted to take those scientists to 
task. What happened to them, they were sent to sensitivity schools and 
told not to do that again. I suggest that we send this legislation to 
the same place.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  We support scientifically credible science. We do not support people 
who go out with some kind of a vendetta. I just think we should not try 
to make this so vitriolic.
  I have been through what has happened in the Northwest. There is one 
thing I learned, if it is not scientifically credible or legally 
defensible, you are not going to go very far. So if one thinks these 
plans are going to hold up once you get the Endangered Species Act in 
place, Members are making a big mistake. It is better to do these 
things scientifically credible in the first instance.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a long-standing member of the 
Committee on the Resources.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized 
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I was sitting in my office watching this 
debate. I participated earlier, and I was going to participate later, 
and I was not going to participate on this amendment until I was 
insulted and the memories of young people from my district were 
insulted by the gentleman from Minnesota. To try and purport that the 
National Forest Management Act had anything to do with the death of 
those kids is outrageous.
  Mr. Chairman, where is the money for the firefighting? The other side 
has not adequately funded it. Where is the money for the fuels 
reduction? It is not in the budget. The other side has passed a so-
called healthy forest bill that does not have one penny, not one red 
cent in it for fuels reduction.
  The other side wants to pretend this stuff can be done on the cheap 
so they can give money in tax cuts to the wealthy people. Those kids 
died protecting their property.
  Mr. Chairman, it does not have to do with the National Forest 
Management Act, and Members know. Put up the money to fight the fires. 
Put up the money to do the fuels reduction and stop screwing around 
with the public process. That is what is being done here. The target 
here is not to get rid of the brush. We have a 6 billion board foot 
backlog of commercial thinning in the Pacific Northwest that the Forest 
Service does not have the money to fund; 6 billion board feet. That 
could put one heck of a lot of people to work for one heck of a long 
time.
  But the other side will not fund it because what is the real target 
here, the target here is the little bit of the remaining old growth. 
That is why they want to change the rules. Not to get the brush or 
fuels reduction or deal with the 6 billion board foot backlog of 
thinning but to go into these forests and cut the last remaining 
valuable old growth trees, the only trees that happen to be fire 
resistant, the only trees that should be left behind when foresters go 
through and remove the rest of the junk from 100 years of forest 
mismanagement.
  And, yes, Democrat and Republican administrations alike are 
responsible for forest mismanagement. But to perpetuate it now and to 
perpetuate it under a myth that somehow it will not cost a penny to 
undo 100 years of mismanagement, that somehow you are going to go in 
and do the thinning, that somehow you are going to go in and do the 
brush removal and the fuels reduction and it will not cost a cent, the 
only way to do that is to take out the most valuable trees at the same 
time, which means you do not leave what every credible fire ecologist 
and scientist says needs to be left in fire-prone forests and which 
would take us back to presettlement conditions and premismanagement 
conditions, the old growth. Do not do this by disrespecting the young 
people from my district and other people in the West who died fighting 
these fires.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say that the gentleman from 
Washington has incredible experience with forest issues; and I believe 
he was right on when he said do not cut the scientists out of the 
process or we are not going to have very good forest planning. That is 
what we are about here today, these regulations cutting scientists out 
of the process.
  Members talk about sound science, but when it comes to this 
administration, the science was thrown out of the window.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) who spoke earlier, and I agree with him, we 
have lost lives and we have lost forests because we have had years and 
years and years of delay rather than trying to address this subject, 
and that is what these resolutions are trying to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) to close.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I know that our colleagues that are watching 
this debate who may not have invested as much time on these issues as 
those of us that are on the floor are probably really confused right 
now. Because I heard the gentleman from Washington give a very 
impassioned description of what we need in the process of doing forest 
planning and I believe an accurate description.
  If that is what the Udall amendment did, I would vote for it in a 
second; and I would get our guys to vote for it. Unfortunately, that 
has nothing to do

[[Page 18605]]

with the amendment that is on the floor. The amendment on the floor is 
to take us back to an old, broken system and not move forward. What we 
are doing right now is what is wrong. It is the process that we 
currently have in place that has led us to an unmanaged forest that has 
resulted in catastrophic fire. It is the process that is in place right 
now that has led us into these endangered species fights. It is the 
process that is in place right now which has caused the problem. Why 
Members want to stay with that process instead of moving forward is 
beyond me.
  I would like to read from a letter that I received from the Secretary 
of Agriculture, Ann Veneman. In part it states, ``The Forest Service is 
required by law to revise land management plans for national forests 
and grasslands every 15 years. To satisfy this requirement, the agency 
needs to complete 92 plan revisions in the next 10 years. The Forest 
Service estimates that it spends over $100 million a year on plan 
revisions using regulations adopted in 1979 and slightly revised in 
1982.'' $100 million a year.
  I do not think that I have to scream to get this across, but when we 
talk about using money for better purposes, spending $100 million a 
year is outrageous.
  It further says, ``In addition, an internal study by professional 
planners in the Forest Service concluded that the 2000 regulations were 
unimple-
mentable, primarily because of the expansive and detailed process 
requirements in the regulations, the large amount of data needed to 
meet these requirements, and the lack of personnel with scarce and 
specialized skills.''
  So not only do Members want to continue doing what we are doing now 
but also force the Forest Service to spend more money putting these 
plans together in order to meet the 11th hour regulations put in place 
by the previous administration.
  It continues, ``In short, the 2000 planning regulations would make 
the already unreasonable procedures and costs associated with the 1982 
regulations worse instead of better.''
  I would further like to read from a letter of the Society of American 
Foresters, ``The forest planning process is crucial to establishing the 
goals and objectives for each national forest unit. It involves 
extensive public involvement, analysis, and local decisionmaking. 
Without clear direction through regulations, the agency's time and 
resources will continue to be tied up in the planning process, instead 
of management activities such as hazardous fuels reduction and forest 
health restoration work.''

                              {time}  1830

  We have also heard a lot about wildlife. The wildlife organizations 
that oppose this amendment include the Boone & Crockett Club, 
Buckmasters American Deer Foundation, Campfire Club, the Congressional 
Sportsmen's Foundation, Conservation Force, Foundation for North 
American Wild Sheep, International Association of Fish and Wildlife 
Agencies, International Hunter Education, National Trappers, National 
Wild Turkey Federation, Pheasants Forever, Quail Unlimited, and on and 
on.
  This is not about wildlife. This is not about science. This is not 
about public participation. This is about protecting the system that is 
in place right now. Many of the folks that have come to the floor today 
to support this amendment are the exact same people who opposed the 
healthy forests initiative. They are the exact same people who did not 
want to move forward in terms of protecting our forests from 
catastrophic fire. They are the same people who proposed putting these 
regulations in place at the end of the previous administration. What we 
currently have is a problem. It has led us to the point where we are 
now. The system is broken. We need to fix it. Vote against the Udall 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. 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 New Mexico (Mr. Udall) 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Holt

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Holt:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following section:
       Sec. 3__. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to manage recreational snowmobile use in Yellowstone 
     and Grand Teton National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller, 
     Jr. Memorial Parkway, except in accordance with National Park 
     Service One-Year Delay Rule published November 18, 2002 (36 
     CFR part 7, RIN 1024-AD06).

  The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt) will control 15 minutes, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Taylor) will control 25 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, Yellowstone Park, our first national park, our premier 
national park, a symbol of America, is being loved to death. My 
colleagues and I today are offering this amendment to protect 
Yellowstone and Grand Teton parks, some of our Nation's most valuable 
treasures. The Park Service which is charged with protecting the 
natural resources of the parks unimpaired for the enjoyment of current 
and future generations has studied the state of these parks. In 
Yellowstone Park, they have determined that the use of snowmobiles is 
the principal insult to the park, an insult that can be corrected. What 
they say is that phasing out of snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand 
Teton is the best way to protect the parks, better than other 
alternatives, better than requiring new snowmobiles, better than 
requiring guided snowmobile tours, better than a cap on the number of 
machines entering the park daily. Snowmobiles produce significantly 
more noise and pollution than cars, presenting a health hazard to park 
rangers, to visitors and obscuring the visibility even around Old 
Faithful. Having been there myself in winter, I can tell you that 
snowmobile noise is clearly audible through much of the park most of 
the time, disturbing wildlife and disrupting visitors' experiences.
  The Park Service in November 2000 issued an environmental impact 
statement that was the culmination of nearly 10 years of study. The 
statement said: ``Based on reduced impacts to human health and safety, 
to air quality, visitor access, the natural soundscape and to wildlife, 
the National Park Service has identified the snowmobile phaseout as the 
environmentally preferred alternative.''
  The Bush administration did not like this conclusion. So they told 
the Park Service to study it again and issue another report, which they 
did, publishing a new environmental impact statement in February of 
this year. This time they considered the impacts of the 
administration's proposal to look at new machines, the four-cycle 
machines, and to cap the number of snowmobiles entering Yellowstone and 
Grand Teton. They came to the previous conclusion. The statement now 
reads: ``The snowmobile phaseout best attains the widest range of 
beneficial uses of the environment without degradation and risk of 
health or safety.''
  Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency weighed in as well. 
Not only did they uphold the Park Service's conclusion that a phaseout 
would be best for the parks and for the visitors, they actually found 
that the Park Service had underestimated the impact of snowmobile 
emissions under the administration's proposal. For no good reason, Mr. 
Chairman, the Interior Department wants to roll back a regulation based 
on 10 years of careful study. They are the ones trying to undo the 
existing snowmobile phaseout. We are

[[Page 18606]]

here to uphold what the Park Service has determined to be best for the 
parks.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), who has studied this and experienced it 
firsthand.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am here today to support the Holt-Rahall amendment 
that would phase out the use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand 
Teton National parks. These parks have a special place in my heart as 
they have in the hearts of most Americans. I have frequently visited 
Grand Teton and Yellowstone Park during the summer months, probably 
visiting Yellowstone 10 times during my life. It is a beautiful park, 
as all Americans know. It is a grand and wonderful place, our first 
national park. But because of the concerns I heard about snowmobile use 
in the winter, I visited the park this past winter with the gentleman 
from New Jersey and the gentleman from West Virginia, because I could 
not believe that things were quite as bad as I heard. In fact, I found 
that they are worse.
  The use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone has all of the negative impacts 
that the gentleman from New Jersey has described, of noise pollution, 
air pollution, the harassment of animals, the impact on the habitat. I 
was completely overwhelmed by the amount of noise that these machines 
generate. But what I did not understand was that government policy is 
to virtually require the use of snowmobiles. I thought this problem was 
because of some recreational use in Yellowstone during the wintertime. 
That shows you what an Easterner maybe does not understand about 
Western winters. There is a lot of snow out there, and they do not pave 
the roads so that cars can ride into Old Faithful or around 
Yellowstone. They groom the roads with the snow on it and pack it down 
for the use of snowmobiles. Snowmobiles are the preferred and only way 
to travel around Yellowstone unless you use a snow coach, a larger-
tracked vehicle that can carry 10 or 15 people.
  So the government policy is to use snowmobiles. Therefore, we are 
responsible for what is happening there. The reality is that the Holt-
Rahall amendment is not about banning snowmobiles. It is about 
protecting Yellowstone. It is about protecting it from the invasion of 
these machines in the wintertime that pollute, that disrupt because of 
noise, disrupt because of harassment.
  We see this picture of one of the groomed roads with some of the 
bison in the Yellowstone herd with even more of a machine herd coming 
behind them, the people that are using the snowmobiles to travel. I am 
sure snowmobiles are a lot of fun to ride. I have, in fact, ridden them 
in the East. I understand the appeal. But this is not about 
snowmobiles. We have an obligation to protect Yellowstone. We have an 
obligation to make sure we stop practices that are hurting Yellowstone. 
We have stopped allowing tourists to chip off parts of the formations 
there. We keep them out of the geyser basins so that there will not be 
damage to the natural beauty or harm to the visitors. We have stopped 
certain things from happening in Yellowstone and in Grand Teton because 
we want to protect the natural beauty and protect those parks for the 
future. Under the same thinking, we have to phase out snowmobiles in 
order to protect the park.
  The three of us visited the entrance to the park on a Saturday 
morning. The pollution, the smoke, the haze was extraordinary. The 
noise was disruptive. No matter where we went in the park, we could 
hear the noise of the snowmobiles. The advocates of the current use say 
that modern technology is improving the situation, that the four-stroke 
technology of the new machines gets rid of the problems that the old 
two-stroke machines were causing. That simply is not the case. The 
four-stroke machines are noisy. They pollute.
  The answer here is to phase out snowmobiles, promote the use of snow 
coaches. The government could purchase a fleet or help develop a fleet 
of snow coaches that could be leased by the government to the private 
sector that now represents snowmobiles. The private sector could take 
the responsibility for putting the visitors into those snow coaches, 
could charge for that, could make money, the economies of the 
surrounding areas would stay strong, and yet we would have done a major 
benefit for Yellowstone by outlawing the snowmobiles, protecting the 
environment and living up to our obligations to be good stewards of 
Yellowstone and Grand Teton for our children and our grandchildren to 
enjoy.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. In the 
beginning, there was no limit to snowmobiles in these parks. In the 
last days of the Clinton administration, the administration barred all 
snowmobiles from the parks. Clearly, people live in the parks and this 
was not acceptable, emergency purposes. We had to come up with a 
program that would be reasonable, and I think this plan that is in 
place or will be in place is a balanced approach that addresses air 
quality, noise, wildlife, and safety concerns while continuing to allow 
the American public access to enjoy the parks during the winter months.
  For the first time, a strict daily limit will be placed on the number 
of vehicles, and the snowmobiles must achieve at least a 90 percent 
reduction in hydrocarbons and a 70 percent reduction in carbon monoxide 
compared to conventional two-stroke engines. We now have four-stroke 
engines.
  The sound question is that no more than 73 decibels of sound, a five-
decibel reduction, has been put in place and 80 percent of the 
snowmobiles will be commercially guided. We have tried to reach a 
balanced plan that I think is reasonable. I urge a ``no'' vote on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
rise in support of this amendment. There was a very important letter 
written on May 20, 2003, by George B. Hartzog, National Park Service 
director, 1964 to 1972; Nathaniel Reed, Assistant Secretary of the 
Interior, 1971 to 1976; Russ Dickenson, National Park Service director, 
1980 to 1985; Denis Galvin, National Park Service deputy director, 1985 
to 1989, 1998 to 2002; Roger Kennedy, National Park Service director, 
1993 to 1997; Robert Stanton, National Park Service director, 1997 to 
2001; Michael Finley, Yellowstone National Park superintendent, 1994 to 
2001; and Robert D. Barbee, Yellowstone National Park superintendent, 
1983 to 1994.
  This letter is to Secretary Norton. It says:
  ``It has been our privilege collectively to serve nine Presidents as 
stewards of America's national parks. For each of us, this experience 
underscored the pride and joy that Americans feel for their common 
heritage and their desire to have national parks vigorously preserved 
for their grandchildren. In this spirit, we write to you about a final 
decision that is before you regarding snowmobile use in Yellowstone 
National Park. There can be no doubt that this decision is a defining 
moment for America's national parks. The choice over snowmobile use in 
Yellowstone is a choice between upholding the founding principle of our 
national parks, stewardship on behalf of all visitors and future 
generations, or catering to a special interest in a manner that would 
damage Yellowstone's resources and threaten public health.
  ``The latter choice would set an entirely new course for America's 
national parks. It is our deep hope as this issue now moves to your 
final review that you will ensure the highest protection for 
Yellowstone. To do otherwise would be a radical departure from the 
Interior Department's stewardship mission. Yellowstone is an 
irreplaceable national treasure, a symbol of our country and a 
gathering place where Americans feel justifiably proud that our country 
led the world by establishing its first national park.

[[Page 18607]]



                              {time}  1845

  ``A decision made on behalf of the snowmobile industry and not for 
Yellowstone's environment and general public would be wrong.
  ``On many occasions President Bush has made laudable pledges that 
members of his administration will always be fully accountable to the 
public. In keeping with this, we are mindful of your assertions 
regarding snowmobile use in Yellowstone. They are as important today as 
they were when you made them.
  ``Two years ago the Interior Department directed that a 
supplemental'' EIS ``be undertaken so that additional information and 
wider public involvement could be brought to bear in making the best 
possible decision about Yellowstone's future. The Department asserted 
that this information would be essential to a sound decision.
  ``On the basis of the new data, the National Park Service verified 
that phasing out snowmobile use would provide the best protection of 
Yellowstone's environment and the health of employees and visitors. The 
study concluded that ending snowmobile use while providing visitors 
access on snowcoaches `best preserves the unique historic, cultural, 
and natural resources associated with Yellowstone and Grand Teton 
National Parks' and would `attain the widest range of beneficial uses 
of the environment without degradation and risk of health and safety.' 
Final Supplemental'' EIS ``February, 2003.
  ``We hope that you will now embrace the central conclusion of a study 
that your Department asserted to the American people would shape a 
better decision. To ignore its conclusion would clearly be to accept 
avoidable risks to health and safety, a narrower range of beneficial 
uses, and weaker preservation of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National 
Parks.
  ``Your department also called for wider public involvement, and the 
call was unquestionably answered. More Americans submitted comments to 
the National Park Service than the agency has received on any single 
issue in its 87-year history. While the volume of comment was 
unprecedented, its reflection of public opinion was consistent with 
previous comment periods over the past several years. By a four-to-one 
margin, Americans urged you to give Yellowstone the best possible 
protection and said they believe, as the National Park Service has 
confirmed, that this means replacing snowmobiles with snowcoaches. We 
hope after calling for public comment, you will heed, not ignore, what 
the public has told you.
  ``Clearly we are in economic and budgetary times that require us to 
be scrupulous with every tax dollar. This is another reason why we urge 
you to adopt a phaseout of snowmobile use. Your study demonstrated that 
continuing snowmobile use in Yellowstone would result not only in 
higher levels of air and noise pollution, harm to wildlife, and risks 
for employee and visitor health; it would also cost taxpayers $1.3 
million more each year than replacing snowmobiles with snowcoaches. 
Surely you will not ask the American taxpayer to pay more for less 
protection, an annual transfer payment to the snowmobile industry 
subsidizing ongoing damage to Yellowstone.
  ``We would be remiss if we did not emphasize one final point. 
Yellowstone's wintertime struggles with pollution, noise, and traffic 
congestion fit into a larger context. Throughout the National Park 
System we have been striving for years to develop more efficient 
transportation systems so that the visitor's national park experience 
can be defined by each park's special attributes and not by negative 
aspects of traffic that most visitors hope to leave at home.
  ``Zion National Park is an excellent example of the success and 
popularity of this strategy. Where automobile traffic had clogged 
Zion's once quiet canyons and the visitors' experience were being 
defined by noise, exhaust, and frustrations finding parking, the Park 
Service substituted shuttle bus access. This change boosted gateway 
business, earned accolades from visitors who today are enjoying a 
better park experience, and reduced impacts to Zion's resources.
  ``In Yellowstone the supplemental study that you requested has 
demonstrated that replacing snowmobiles with an efficient system of 
snowcoaches would bring similar benefits. In fact, with wildlife under 
stress from Yellowstone's deep snows, frigid temperatures, and 
employees and visitors breathing snowmobile fumes often trapped by the 
park's inversions, the benefits of reducing traffic and emissions would 
be even greater than they have been in Zion.
  ``In summary, we join as former public stewards of America's national 
parks in urging you to place Yellowstone National Park back on a path 
that gives the highest priority to protecting its natural qualities for 
today's visitors and future generations. To do otherwise would ignore 
sound science, the public will, and responsibility to taxpayers; and, 
worst of all, it would erode a precious gift that this country gave 
itself and the world, a gift that will only become more valuable to our 
Nation as our population grows.''
  So if these eight people representing a cross-section of our American 
political life who have served in the parks on a bipartisan basis over 
the last 40 years can come together, certainly I hope that our House 
can come together tonight in support of the Holt amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Smoke is being blown in the United States Congress. In fact, more 
smoke than is being blown by the snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park. I 
share with the Members what a dear colleague, the gentleman from New 
Jersey sent out, showing a picture of a park ranger with a gas mask. I 
will now share with the members the words from the environmental impact 
statement from the Governor of the State of Montana, who was charged 
with the responsibility of clean air violations.
  ``It is important to note that, despite public perception to the 
contrary,'' and the perception trying to be created on this House floor 
today, ``the West Yellowstone interest has not recorded any violation 
of State or national air quality standards during the past four winter 
seasons.''
  There is a reason we established dude ranches in Montana, because a 
lot of dudes like to come out and they do not know which end of a horse 
to jump up on.
  I spent every weekend in Yellowstone Park growing up. I can honestly 
tell the Members the impact on the park is minimal. It is 2.2 million 
acres. The snowmobiles are required to stay on the minimum amount of 
land available to them, which is the roads. It is ironic that the 
sponsor of the amendment would say the best alternative is no human 
interaction. Frankly, if they did not want human involvement in 
Yellowstone Park, they are about 100 years too late.
  Snowcoaches as the preferred alternative by the Clinton 
administration? Have you been down there? Have you listened to the 
snowcoaches? They are the noisiest, loudest, smelliest way of 
transporting oneself around the park. In fact, they do not even make 
enough snowcoaches to deal with the volume of people that would like to 
go in. The economic impact alone is incredible, $33 million a year lost 
to West Yellowstone.
  We have spent a lot of time studying this issue. We have spent a lot 
of time having hearings, letting people look us in the eye and say, ``I 
am going to lose my job if you phase out snowmobiles.'' This amendment 
does not give them that opportunity. No guts in this House.
  Give these people an opportunity to look these people in the eye and 
say, I am the one whose family is going to lose their way of making a 
living, making a living that was encouraged by this Federal Government. 
Please establish yourself in the gateway communities around the park so 
that we do

[[Page 18608]]

not have to build those facilities in the park. Allow an opportunity to 
create the business and an economy outside the park, and now we are 
going to pull the rug out from under them. It does not make any sense 
to me.
  Visitor access, multiple use. There is a way of dealing with this. 
And in fact, the snowmobile industry has stepped forward. They are 
saying, yes, we understand. Two-stroke engines are smelly and create 
too much emissions. They now have four-stroke. Have you been there? 
Have you listened to them? One can stand next to a snowmobile and not 
even hear it run, and one cannot smell it. They are quiet. They have 
worked real hard at creating an opportunity to move the snowmobiles 
around.
  Let me tell the Members what we are talking about here. Under our 
plan, there will only be 50 individual snowmobiles allowed through the 
north entrance, 250 through the south entrance, 100 in the east 
entrance, and 550 in the west entrance. That is not many individual 
snowmobiles. We have done everything we can to try to create the 
opportunity of a quality involvement in our national park system. This 
does nothing more than pull that consensus-building process out from 
under our ability to have a good economy, to have a good park 
experience, and understand that the park was created for enjoyment. 
These machines do not create the kind of damage that they are trying to 
blow smoke up our skirts with by putting this kind of garbage out. It 
is not true. Vote against this amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me 
this time.
  I want to quickly make a comment in reference to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rehberg) and praise him for all his efforts to deal with 
this issue I think in a very comprehensive, competent way.
  I come to the floor on this issue from a slightly different 
perspective. I am from Maryland, not from out West. I have lived and 
worked in the Rocky Mountains. I have ridden snowmobiles in National 
Forest in the Rocky Mountains. I have had some experience in the 
wintertime in pretty cold places, spent the winter of 1966 in a tent 
250 miles north of the Arctic Circle in Norwood, a number of 
experiences.
  But what I want to do is make a comparison between the Chesapeake Bay 
and Yellowstone Park. The Chesapeake Bay is a beautiful estuary. We are 
working hard to restore it. But the Chesapeake Bay in some sense like 
Yellowstone is being loved to death by too many people. In the 
Chesapeake Bay, it is not snowmobiles. It is motorboats.
  In the Chesapeake, if we want to bring back the oysters, which are 99 
percent less than what they were 100 years ago; if we want to bring the 
crabs, which are 50 percent of what they were 50 years ago; if we want 
to bring back the rockfish, they need certain areas to spawn, they need 
certain areas to survive. And, yes, we can have motorboats in the 
Chesapeake Bay, but what we are trying to do is to limit those 
motorboat activities to certain areas where they do not have 
interaction with spawning areas or critical wildlife habitat.
  In the Chesapeake Bay we are looking at this issue, this motorboat 
human activity issue, with three things: respect, responsibility, and 
dignity for the bounty of God's creation. And in this issue of 
snowmobiles in Yellowstone, there are still about I am told, and 
correct me if I am wrong, in the three-State area, 13,000 miles of 
access that will not be impacted at all from snowmobiles. What we are 
talking about here is about 180 miles of snowmobile access right in 
Yellowstone.
  So it is a difference of opinion. I think people on both sides of the 
issue, the gentleman from Montana, the gentleman from New Jersey, both 
gentlemen are trying to do what they feel is right for the pristine 
beauty of certain wonderful places in the United States; and I will 
tell the Members to vote their conscience on this issue.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, the decision to ban snowmobiles from the 
roads of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks is based on 
politics, not on facts and not on laws. This rule was published just 2 
days after President Bush was sworn into office. Much like the roadless 
rule, this decision was predetermined and more about getting President 
Clinton in the extreme environmental hall of fame than establishing 
good public policy. It was one of many sad last-ditch efforts to polish 
the tarnished Clinton legacy.
  Predetermining the outcome was an obvious violation of the National 
Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, and was well-documented in the 
lawsuit filed by the State of Wyoming. The Babbitt administration and 
the Clinton administration rushed to force the snowmobile ban, leaving 
public tours only to be taken by snowcoaches rather than snowmobiles.
  What is a snowcoach? It sounds warm and fuzzy and friendly. A 
snowcoach is a modified sports utility vehicle, a bus or a van, in 
which the wheels and the drive line are modified to use a track system 
similar to those used on old Army tanks. We have one here.
  Notice the bison and how apparently the bison are not bothered by 
interaction with man. And, by the way, the road we are looking at is 
the same road that snowmobiles would go on. So it is not going to 
answer the problem that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) 
mentioned about buffalo going down the road. The roads will still be 
there.

                              {time}  1900

  These vehicles, here is another one, get 2 to 4 miles per gallon; and 
believe me, I have been on them and they are noisy. They travel the 
exact same roads snowmobiles and cars do, and their air emissions are 
worse than the new generations of snowmobiles by far.
  I have been in Congress a long time, but this is the first time I 
have had environmentalists advocate for more SUVs in Yellowstone 
National Park or any national parks. It is also the first time I have 
ever heard of environmentalists saying that the use of tank-like 
vehicles is good for wildlife or the environment.
  Let us be honest in this debate. Let us not pretend that preventing 
the use of snowmobiles will remove all human-wildlife interaction. 
Bison jams will still happen, just as they do in the summer months, 
when 1.7 million cars drive through Yellowstone National Park. These 
bison do not seem overly concerned whether a snowcoach or a snowmobile 
is in the road.
  In Babbitt's rush to illegally force a snowmobile ban through the 
regulatory process, the air emissions statistics of snowcoaches were 
actually trumped up to show that they were more environmentally 
friendly than new generation snowmobiles. In fact, the National Park 
Service study understated carbon monoxide emissions for snowmobiles by 
a factor of 50 percent, because they used emission factors for light 
trucks with wheels on paved roads to calculate potential air-quality 
impacts, rather than testing the vehicles after converted to track 
systems and run on a snow-covered road.
  Yellowstone National Park was created in 1872, as has been stated 
before, with the dual purpose of conserving its unique resources and 
providing a recreation area ``for the benefit and enjoyment of the 
American people.''
  No damage has ever been done to the parks by the 65,000 snowmobiles 
which enter the parks each winter nor the 1.7 million cars that enter 
in the summer months on the same roads. Snowmobiles have never caused a 
violation of our current environmental laws, and air quality will only 
improve under the guideline advanced by the National Park Service.
  The new generation 4-stroke engines are much quieter and cleaner than 
the older models. They are wildlife friendly, and they allow for an 
enjoyable trip through the park for all the visitors.
  The new plan put forth by the National Park Service provides a good

[[Page 18609]]

balance for continued snowmobile and snowcoach use, while still 
preserving the health of our national parks and the wildlife.
  Oppose the Holt anti-snowmobiling amendment. And remember, we do not 
want more SUVs retrofitted to look like tanks driving through our 
national parks.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
support of this amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey. What the 
bill seeks to do, as many have already stated, is to overturn two 
comprehensive studies about the harm that snowmobiles do to the park. 
The fact of the matter is that those decisions were made in an 
arbitrary fashion. While they identified the least environmentally 
damaging alternative, they chose not to take it. They chose not to take 
it because their intent from the very beginning was to overturn the 
rule and to provide access for the snowmobiles. Not only did they 
provide access, but they increased the level of access.
  The fact of the matter is the National Park Service has made its 
finding that these impair and harm the parks. They cause harm to the 
individuals who are working in the park at that time. We ought not to 
overturn that.
  To bring up these coaches from the 1950s is not to deal with the 
issue in an honest fashion. The fact is that there are new coaches that 
were on order, they have been put on hold because of the change in the 
rules, and we ought to protect the parks by bringing people in to enjoy 
the parks, to see the parks, to experience the parks, but do it in a 
manner which is environmentally compatible with the best interests of 
the parks.
  That is the fiduciary relationship that the Secretary of the Interior 
has on behalf of the parks and on behalf of the American people. It is 
not to introduce this source of pollution in an unlimited fashion.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the Committee on Small 
Business, it was my opportunity to hold a field hearing for the purpose 
of gaining the actual facts as to what would happen economically to the 
people of West Yellowstone, Montana. Mr. Chairman, 1,100 people in the 
town would suffer a $33 million hit from the snowmobile ban.
  Why would there be such an effect? Yellowstone National Park is the 
attraction, not a nearby national forest. Some encourage snowmobilers 
to redirect their enthusiasm for the sport to nearby national forest 
land. However, most wintertime visitors at Yellowstone who come from 
other parts of the country could recreate much closer to home, and they 
choose to come to Yellowstone because of its unique features. The 
amendment that is offered is similar to if the Park Service still 
allowed people to visit the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, but 
suspended ferry service because of concern over water quality, forcing 
people to row, canoe, or swim to Liberty Island and still expect the 
same number of people to visit the Statue of Liberty.
  The production and use of snowmobiles, if you are interested in an 
economic recovery, is a $7 billion industry in this country. It creates 
roughly 75,000 jobs. We are struggling with the highest national 
unemployment rate in nearly a decade, and if this amendment goes 
through, it will result in thousands of people losing their jobs in the 
manufacturing sector, including the people that I represent in 
Rockford, Illinois, who are at 11 percent unemployment because of the 
huge hit on manufacturing. And I wonder if the people who want to 
eliminate snowmobiling in West Yellowstone Park think anything about 
the manufacturing workers who are struggling to keep their jobs, but 
they keep their jobs making snowmobile parts.
  I was there at West Yellowstone Park. I got on one of these machines. 
In fact, I asked the owner of the machine to turn it on. He said, 
Congressman, the machine is already on. It was a new 4-stroke machine. 
Extremely quiet, Mr. Chairman; and there was no smoke. I said, would 
you turn on a 2-stroke machine, the old snowmobile machine. He turned 
it on, and the smoke is belching out of there and there is blue smoke, 
all kinds of noise. That is old technology. That is gone forever. 
Because the rules say, use the 4-cycle machine because it is whisper 
quiet.
  I rode that snowmobile along with my wife, who is a biologist and who 
understands the environment. We came within 20 feet of an eagle and he 
just looked at us. We came within 10 feet of a bison; he just looked at 
us. And a fox came down the road just looking around. Do my colleagues 
know what happened? As we were in this trail of snowmobiles, as we got 
to those beautiful animals, the leader raised his arm, almost in 
reverence, as to the beautiful environment and the animals that were 
there so we could see them closely and firsthand.
  This is new technology. There is no smoke. There is no noise. These 
are people who want to go to the park and examine and see nature as 
opposed to being in those terrible coaches that make all kinds of noise 
and make all kinds of tracks, and you cannot even see. In fact, it was 
very quiet on that snowmobile trail until such time as one of those 
snowcoaches came along.
  But there is more to it than that. It is that the 15 to 20 percent 
drop in recreation would literally destroy the school system of 
Vermillion, South Dakota, which is where some of these snowmobiles are 
made. We have to think about the economic impact of such a harsh 
decision just to ban something. It would put Vermillion, South Dakota, 
in tremendous distress. And all across the Nation, communities that 
depend upon taxes from the snowmobile industry would be tremendously 
impacted. That is what this is about.
  Mr. Chairman, what this is about is a reasonable rule that the 
National Park Service developed for the purpose of allowing people of 
this country and people from around the world to come and visit the 
natural and pristine beauty of West Yellowstone Park. This is a ``no'' 
vote. It is a ``no'' vote because it will keep the people employed in 
West Yellowstone. It is a ``no'' vote because it will keep many people 
employed in the congressional district that I represent.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), so that he may control and yield that time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my remaining time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to address the issue about what 
the Holt-Rahall amendment is all about, because I do not believe it is 
about diminishing wildlife.
  As the chart shows here, since the National Park Service began 
grooming trails in the 1960s, the number of elk and bison have 
exploded, reaching the park's natural carrying capacity in the mid-
1990s and remaining there ever since then. The park animals are 
breeding like rabbits. They are now leaving the park in search for 
food. There is no documented peer review science which indicates that 
snowmobiles are placing any species in Yellowstone at risk.
  The Holt amendment is not about wildlife, and it is not about noise. 
The new 4-stroke machines that will be required under the National Park 
Service's record of decision are extremely quiet. The snowcoaches which 
would replace them under the Holt amendment are orders of magnitude 
louder and would have a noise impact on 17,000 more acres than would be 
the case under the National Park Service's ROD.
  For those who have not had the opportunity to ride in a snowcoach, as 
the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cuban) testified, let me assure my 
colleagues that it is not a pleasant experience. It is a tank, it is 
loud, it is noisy, and it is uncomfortable. If you ask them, most of 
those who ride in a snowcoach will tell you that they will not do it 
again.
  The Holt amendment is not about lowering noise, and neither is it 
about

[[Page 18610]]

lessening emissions. Compared to machines made just 4 years ago, 
today's snowmobiles are much cleaner, with particulate matter emissions 
falling over 95 percent in the past 4 years. In fact, there is no lower 
particulate matter benefit from banning snowmobiles from Yellowstone, 
as the chart suggests here.
  According to the Southwest Research Institute, the SRI, a nationally 
recognized testing laboratory that conducts emissions tests for the 
California Air Resources Board, emissions from snowcoaches are six 
times as high as that of snowmobiles. With an average occupant load of 
three to four passengers on a per-occupant basis, emissions from 
snowcoaches exceed that of new technology snowmobiles. Even assuming a 
fully loaded snowcoach, emissions are likely to occur under the Holt 
amendment that are no better than that of six snowmobiles.
  The Holt amendment is not about emissions, and neither is it about 
public health. Even during the days of dirty 2-stroke machines, there 
has never been a Clean Air Act violation in Yellowstone. With the 
introduction of new technology machines this winter, the issue of 
public health becomes a red herring. Based on the EPA's analysis, in 
the worst-case analysis of the air and the most impacted area of the 
park, the air in Yellowstone under the ROD will be 10 times cleaner 
than OSHA standards, 10 times cleaner than the requirements for our 
workers.
  The Holt amendment is not about public health. If the science clearly 
indicates that the Holt amendment does not result in improvements in 
noise, emissions, wildlife propagation, or public health, then what is 
the Holt amendment about?
  Mr. Chairman, the Holt amendment is about restricting choice, and it 
is about limiting public access to our national parks only to those who 
are able-bodied enough to hike or cross-country ski into Yellowstone 
National Park during the winter months.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Chair the time remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) has 5\3/4\ 
minutes remaining, after assuming the time of the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks); and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Taylor) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the fight over the use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone 
National Park has raged on for more than a decade. In the most recent 
round, the National Park Service found that these machines impair park 
resources, a finding which required a ban on this activity.

                              {time}  1915

  Only days after taking office, President Bush shelved the ban and 
requested a new environmental assessment of the issue. So 2 years and 
2.4 million tax dollars later, the new study came out; and, lo and 
behold, that study reached the same conclusions. Snowmobiles are bad 
for Yellowstone.
  Not to be deterred by the facts, however, the Bush administration has 
pursued not a ban but rather increased snowmobile use in the park and 
is set to issue new rules to implement this policy any day now.
  The fact that the administration is allowing public natural resources 
to be abused of course is not news. Virtually every environmental 
policy developed by this administration is crafted to benefit one 
industry or another. However, the Bush snowmobile policy is 
particularly devastating because it threatens not only Yellowstone's 
bison and bald eagles but also the entire process of environmental 
regulation.
  To wake up one morning in the Bush White House and decide to toss 
this policy out the window is not just wrong, it is dangerous. 
Determining how best to protect the crown jewel of our National Park 
System is not sandlot football. You just cannot call for a ``do over'' 
if you do not like the way the game turned out.
  Either 78 decibels worth of noise harms wildlife in the park or it 
does not. Either discharging gasoline and motor oil directly into 
ground water harms the park or it does not.
  These are fundamental scientific questions that were answered through 
a careful and standardized policy-making process twice, twice. Deciding 
to change the answers or ignore them will have devastating 
consequences. If the Bush snowmobile policy stands, it threatens not 
only the park and its resources but also the public's confidence in our 
park system, our park service and our entire system of environmental 
protections.
  Like the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and several of our 
colleagues, I have visited Yellowstone. During the winter, I have 
experienced firsthand the devastating effect snowmobiles have on the 
park. I did not like what I smelled. I did not like what I heard. I did 
not like what I saw. Indeed, that evening I was having dreams, rather, 
I should say nightmares, of the Daytona Speedway as I went to bed.
  If the administration is not willing to uphold and defend the law, 
those of us in Congress who love Yellowstone must act. We must act to 
preserve Yellowstone but also to preserve the faith that the American 
people have in our stewardship of the national parks. This is not anti-
snowmobile. This is pro-Yellowstone. It is pro-protection for one of 
the crown jewels of our American park system. I urge support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time for closing.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the co-sponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I 
believe protecting and preserving our environment is one of the most 
important duties we have as Members of Congress.
  Our predecessors understood the preservation of our natural resources 
was a moral and patriotic obligation. It was their vision and foresight 
that led to the establishment of the Yellowstone National Park in 1872 
owned by all Americans. The creation of our first national park was a 
farsighted guarantee each generation would inherent a healthy and 
vibrant Yellowstone.
  But, today, the park's health is in jeopardy. On peak days this 
winter $1,600 snowmobiles entered Yellowstone, generating tremendous 
noise and pollution.


                             Point of Order

  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe there is a rule against allowing the pictures 
down there of the person at the stock car races in West Virginia 
staying on the floor.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is correct. Exhibits may not remain on 
static display in the well.
  It is now removed.
  The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) may resume.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the harm caused by snowmobiles used in 
Yellowstone have been scientifically proven, studied further and proven 
yet again. Over the past decade the Park Service, the Environmental 
Protection Agency and independent experts have conducted extensive 
studies and always reach the same conclusion: A phaseout of snowmobiles 
is necessary to restore Yellowstone's health. I hope we take action 
today to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Holt-Shays-Rahall-Johnson 
amendment to protect Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Parks.
  I believe protecting and preserving our environment is one of the 
most important duties we have as members of Congress. We simply won't 
have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways.
  Our predecessors understood the preservation of our natural resources 
was a moral and patriotic obligation. It was their vision and foresight 
that led to the establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872.

[[Page 18611]]

  The creation of our first national park was a far-sighted guarantee 
each new generation would inherit a healthy and vibrant Yellowstone, a 
park complete with wildlife, majestic vistas and awe-inspiring geysers.
  But, today, the park's health is in jeopardy. On peak days this 
winter, 1,600 snowmobiles entered Yellowstone generating tremendous 
noise and pollution.
  As a result, our park rangers are forced to wear respirators to 
combat the noxious cloud of blue smoke in which they work and park 
visitors are rarely free from the roar of snowmobiles.
  And even after studying the latest generation of snowmobiles, the 
Environmental Protection Agency still found that a phase-out of these 
machines ``would provide the best available protection for human 
health, wildlife, air quality, soundscapes, visibility and visitor 
experiences.''
  The harm caused by snowmobile use in Yellowstone has been 
scientifically proven, studies further, and proven yet again.
  Over the past decade, the Park Service, the Environmental Protection 
Agency, and independent experts have conducted extensive studies and 
always reached the same conclusion: a phase-out of snowmobiles is 
necessary to restore Yellowstone's health.
  By a 4-to-1 margin, Americans overwhelmingly support protecting 
Yellowstone by replacing snowmobile use with park-friendly, people-
friendly snowcoaches.
  This amendment does not restrict winter access to the Park. Rather, 
it requires visitors to travel in a manner that ensures the integrity 
of Yellowstone's precious natural resources.
  This amendment seeks no more and no less than doing for Yellowstone 
what the National Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency and 
the American people believe is necessary to protect the park.
  Let's not waste another minute or another dollar of taxpayer money 
further studying this issue. Let's put into law a scientifically sound, 
environmentally safe and fiscally responsible decision that protects 
our nation's first treasure.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Holt-Shays-Rahall-Johnson 
amendment to protect Yellowstone National Park.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) has 
indicated he has reserved his time to close.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) has 2\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I restore this picture of the park ranger with the 
respirator to make the point that this is not a stunt. The Park Service 
actually issues respirators to its rangers. It is that bad, and they 
use them.
  Now to refer to a couple of points that were made with regard to the 
economic impact. That was part of these studies, and the Park Service 
included in the study the economic impact of this phaseout. Now it is 
worth noting that a few years ago, in 1995-1996, when west entrance 
visitations decreased by 13 percent over the previous year, resort tax 
collection increased by almost 10 percent. The point is that 
preservation of the environment is in the interest of the economy. The 
National Park Service has determined through extensive studies that 
phasing out snowmobiles and converting to snowcoaches would have a less 
than 1 percent effect on the five county economy, and many business 
owners are saying the protection of the Yellowstone is vital to their 
economic future.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been studied over and over again. Every point 
that the opponents have raised here has been addressed multiple times. 
It is worth pointing out what the locals, the local people are saying. 
Let me refer to a couple of newspapers from Montana.
  The Great Falls Tribune says, ``Sometimes politics replaces common 
sense, and it is happening now at Yellowstone Park. It is literally a 
dirty, stinking shame.''
  The Helena Independent Record says, ``There remains something 
inherently out of kilter about letting snowmobiles roar through the 
pristine winter silence. It is not as if the West lacks places outside 
of Yellowstone.''
  The Casper, Wyoming, Star Tribune says, ``Given the scientific 
evidence and the data of the degrading effects of snowmobiles, allowing 
their use in the parks violates the mission given to the National Park 
Service by Congress to manage the parks in such a manner and by such 
means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of current and 
future generations.''
  That is what our amendment seeks to do, Mr. Chairman.
                                                     May 20, 2003.
     Hon. Gale Norton,
     U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Norton: It has been our privilege 
     collectively to serve nine presidents as stewards of 
     America's national parks. For each of us, this experience 
     underscored the pride and joy that Americans feel for their 
     common heritage and their desire to have national parks 
     vigorously preserved for their grandchildren. In this spirit, 
     we write to you about a final decision that is before you 
     regarding snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park. There 
     can be no doubt that this decision is a defining moment for 
     America's national parks.
       The choice over snowmobile use in Yellowstone is a choice 
     between upholding the founding principle of our national 
     parks--stewardship on behalf of all visitors and future 
     generations--or catering to a special interest in a manner 
     that would damage Yellowstone's resources and threaten public 
     health. The latter choice would set an entirely new course 
     for America's national parks.
       It is our deep hope as this issue now moves to your final 
     review that you will ensure the highest protection for 
     Yellowstone. To do otherwise would be a radical departure 
     from the Interior Department's stewardship mission. 
     Yellowstone is an irreplaceable national treasure, a symbol 
     of our country, and a gathering place where Americans feel 
     justifiably proud that our country led the world by 
     establishing its first national park. A decision made on 
     behalf of the snowmobile industry and not for Yellowstone's 
     environment and the general public would be wrong.
       On many occasions, President Bush has made laudable pledges 
     that members of his administration will always be fully 
     accountable to the public. In keeping with this, we are 
     mindful of your assertions regarding snowmobile use in 
     Yellowstone; they are as important today as they were when 
     you made them.
       Two years ago, the Interior Department directed that a 
     supplemental environmental study be undertaken so that 
     additional information and wider public involvement could be 
     brought to bear in making the best possible decision about 
     Yellowstone's future. The Department asserted that this 
     information would be essential to a sound decision.
       On the basis of the new data, the National Park Service 
     verified that phasing out snowmobile use would provide the 
     best protection of Yellowstone's environment and the health 
     of employees and visitors. The study concluded that ending 
     snowmobile use while providing visitors access on 
     snowcoaches:
       ``. . .  best preserves the unique historic, cultural, and 
     natural resources associated with Yellowstone and Grand Teton 
     National Parks . . .'' and would ``. . . attain the widest 
     range of beneficial uses of the environment without 
     degradation and risk of health and safety.''--Final 
     supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, February 2003.
       We hope that you will now embrace the central conclusion of 
     a study that your Department asserted to the American people 
     would shape a better decision. To ignore its conclusion would 
     clearly be to accept avoidable risks to health and safety, a 
     narrower range of beneficial uses, and weaker preservation of 
     Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks.
       Your Department also called for wider public involvement 
     and the call was unquestionably answered. More Americans 
     submitted comments to the National Park Service than the 
     agency has received on any single issue in its 87-year 
     history. While the volume of comment was unprecedented, its 
     reflection of public opinion was consistent with previous 
     comment periods over the past several years. By a 4-to-1 
     margin, Americans urged you to give Yellowstone the best 
     possible protection and said they believe--as the National 
     Park Service has confirmed--that this means replacing 
     snowmobiles with snowcoaches. We hope that after calling for 
     public comment, you will heed, not ignore, what the public 
     has told you.
       Clearly we are in economic and budgetary times that require 
     us to be scrupulous with every tax dollar. This is another 
     reason why we urge you to adopt a phaseout of snowmobile use. 
     Your study demonstrated that continuing snowmobile use in 
     Yellowstone would result not only in higher levels of air and 
     noise pollution, harm to wildlife, and risks for employee and 
     visitor health; it would also cost taxpayers $1.3 million 
     more each year than replacing snowmobiles with snowcoaches. 
     Surely you will not ask the American taxpayer to pay more for 
     less protection, an annual transfer payment to the snowmobile 
     industry subsidizing ongoing damage to Yellowstone.
       We would be remiss if we did not emphasize one final point. 
     Yellowstone's wintertime struggles with pollution, noise, and 
     traffic congestion fit into a larger context. Throughout the 
     National Park System, we have been striving for years to 
     develop more efficient transportation systems so that the

[[Page 18612]]

     visitor's national park experience can be defined by each 
     park's special attributes and not by negative aspects of 
     traffic that most visitors hope to leave at home.
       Zion National Park is an excellent example of the success 
     and popularity of this strategy. Where automobile traffic had 
     clogged Zion's once quiet canyons and the visitor's 
     experience was being defined by noise, exhaust, and 
     frustrations finding parking, the Park Service substituted 
     shuttle bus access. This change boosted gateway business, 
     earned accolades from visitors who today are enjoying a 
     better park experience, and reduced impacts to Zion's 
     resources.
       In Yellowstone, the supplemental study that you requested 
     has demonstrated that replacing snowmobiles with an efficient 
     system of snowcoaches would bring similar benefits. In fact, 
     with wildlife under stress from Yellowstone's deep snows and 
     frigid temperatures, and employees and visitors breathing 
     snowmobile fumes often trapped by the park's inversions, the 
     benefits of reducing traffic and emissions would be even 
     greater than they have been in Zion.
       In summary, we join as former public stewards of America's 
     national parks in urging you to place Yellowstone National 
     Park back on a path that gives the highest priority to 
     protecting its natural qualities for today's visitors and 
     future generations. To do otherwise would ignore sound 
     science, the public will, and responsibility to taxpayers. 
     And worst of all, it would erode a precious gift that this 
     country gave itself and the world, a gift that will only 
     become more valuable to our nation as our population grows.
           Sincerely,
         George B. Hartzog, Jr., National Park Service Director 
           (1964-1972); National P. Reed, Assistant Secretary of 
           the Interior (1971-1976); Russell E. Dickenson, 
           National Park Service Director (1980-1985); Denis P. 
           Galvin, National Park Service Deputy Director (1985-
           1989 and 1998-2002); Roger G. Kennedy, National Park 
           Service Director (1993-1997); Robert Stanton, National 
           Park Service Director (1997-2001); Michael V. Finley, 
           Yellowstone National Park Superintendent (1994-2001); 
           Robert D. Barbee, Yellowstone National Park 
           Superintendent (1983-1994).

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  One of the previous speakers came to the floor and gave a lengthy 
explanation of this amendment. One of the things that he said was this 
is not about snowmobiles, and I think it is probably the only thing 
that he said that I agreed with because I do not believe that this 
amendment is about snowmobiles.
  Over the last several years a number of concerns have been raised 
over snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park. They included visitor enjoyment, 
visitor and employee health, safety, air quality, the natural 
landscape, wildlife. I believe those were very legitimate concerns that 
were raised. I believe that in the management of this park, that that 
had gotten out of hand and there were legitimate concerns that had been 
raised.
  The administration responded to that. The industry responded to that. 
The industry developed quieter, safer, less noisy machines in order to 
meet the standards. The administration adopted policies which restrict 
where the snowmobiles can go. It was a balanced approach to managing 
one of our most important public assets. Striving to reach that balance 
is where we really should be in terms of policy here.
  Unfortunately, there are people who want to take the extreme and say 
we are just going to ban them altogether. Well, if you are going to ban 
65,000 snowmobiles who stay on the public roads in Yellowstone, what 
about the one and a half million cars? Is that next? Because that is 
where we are going. When you come to our public assets, our public 
parks, especially the crown jewels like Yellowstone, it is important 
that we ensure that the public has access to those crown jewels and 
that we have the abilities as citizens of this country to enjoy our 
public lands. And in order to do that we have to reach a balance.
  No, we cannot pretend that allowing people into Yellowstone Park has 
no impact on the environment. It does. No matter how they get there 
they have an impact on the environment. If you were successful and you 
ban snowmobiles and ultimately ban cars from Yellowstone Park but you 
let people walk in, that would have an impact on the environment.
  So how do we ensure the greatest number of people have an opportunity 
to see this park and enjoy it both in the summer and the wintertime 
with having the least possible impact on the environment? The way that 
we do that is by adopting a balanced rule, a balanced approach. You can 
take snowmobiles in, but they have to be quieter, they have to be less 
polluting, and we are going to restrict you to the roads. And not only 
that, we will require that you have a guide with you when go into the 
park, trying to address all of the concerns that have been brought up.
  A lot of the debates that you have heard here was about the way it 
used to be, not about the new rules that were being adopted. This is a 
balanced approach between having the least possible impact we can on 
our environment and at the same time allowing public access. That is a 
reasonable, balanced approach. You cannot continue to defend the 
extreme. You cannot continue to defend those who want people off public 
lands. You cannot continue to do that. But that is what we have had 
over and over today.
  I oppose this amendment. I think that the administration has done a 
fantastic job of listening to people and trying to respond to their 
concerns. I think it is extremely important that we allow this rule to 
go forward and we allow the administration to go forward with what has 
proven to be a very balanced approach and oppose this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. 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 New Jersey (Mr. Holt) 
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:
  Amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly); amendment 
No. 4 by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall); amendment No. 9 
by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall); and amendment No. 2 by 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. The 
remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Gallegly

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Gallegly) 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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 15-minute vote followed by three 5-
minute votes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163, 
noes 255, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 382]

                               AYES--163

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hinchey

[[Page 18613]]


     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Regula
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--255

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     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)
     Case
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Barton (TX)
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bonilla
     Burgess
     Carter
     Ferguson
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Granger
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Johnson, Sam
     Millender-McDonald
     Peterson (PA)
     Weldon (PA)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1951

  Messrs. SOUDER, SANDLIN, MORAN of Kansas, REYES, and LINCOLN DIAZ-
BALART of Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, and Messrs. PASCRELL, GONZALEZ, FARR, 
DOOLEY of California, LARSEN of Washington, BROWN of Ohio, and CONYERS 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Ms. McCOLLUM changed her vote from ``present'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 382, due to a 
technical difficulty, my vote was recorded as a ``no.'' It should have 
been an ``aye.''


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Rahall

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) 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 CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 220, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 383]

                               AYES--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     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
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--220

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley

[[Page 18614]]


     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barton (TX)
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bonilla
     Burgess
     Carter
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Ferguson
     Gephardt
     Granger
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Johnson, Sam
     Millender-McDonald
     Weldon (PA)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. McINTYRE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2000


           Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) 
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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198, 
noes 222, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 384]

                               AYES--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     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)
     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
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--222

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     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)
     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
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Barton (TX)
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bonilla
     Burgess
     Carter
     Ferguson
     Gephardt
     Granger
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Johnson, Sam
     Millender-
       McDonald


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain 
in this vote.

                              {time}  2009

  Mrs. NORTHUP changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) 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.

[[Page 18615]]




                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210, 
noes 210, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 385]

                               AYES--210

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--210

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanders
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Barton (TX)
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bonilla
     Burgess
     Carter
     Ferguson
     Gephardt
     Granger
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Johnson, Sam
     Millender-McDonald
     Souder


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain 
in this vote.

                              {time}  2017

  Mr. GIBBONS and Mr. PORTMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. ROSS and Mr. TURNER of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. John

  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. John:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to prosecute any individual for taking migratory 
     birds as described in 20.21(i)(1)(i) of title 50, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, on or over land or water where seeds or 
     grains have been scattered solely as the result of 
     manipulated re-growth of a harvested rice crop.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Points of order are reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. John) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, let me thank Ranking Member Dicks and also Chairman Taylor for 
allowing me to offer this amendment. I also want to thank the United 
States Fish and Wildlife Service for their ongoing cooperation 
regarding a very important issue to many of my constituents in 
Louisiana and elsewhere around the country.
  Growing up in the coastal marshes of Louisiana, also known as the 
Sportsman's Paradise, I am a very avid hunter and fisherman. It is a 
way of life for me and many other people in the marshes of Louisiana. I 
am also a very active member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus. 
Let me begin by clarifying that I adamantly oppose the practice of 
illegal waterfowl baiting. It is in the best interest of sportsmen, 
farmers and conservationists to maintain and support a healthy 
population of our Nation's waterfowl all across the Nation.
  At the same time, however, we must also be careful to acknowledge and 
properly address shortcomings in the current interpretation and 
sometimes subjective nature of existing Federal regulations. Any 
misinterpretation of these regulations unintentionally prohibits legal 
hunting methods. This misunderstanding also prohibits agricultural 
producers from implementing normal agricultural practices that are 
essential in the preparation of next year's crops. These practices are 
in no way intended to bait waterfowl or undermine the Federal 
regulations.
  For the past several years, hunters, farmers and landowners in 
Louisiana have experienced serious problems determining whether or not 
what they are doing is abiding by the intent of Federal law. As a 
result of the unique nature of the growing season in Louisiana and also 
the unique agricultural process of growing rice, there is a 
disagreement over what constitutes a harvested rice crop and over what 
constitutes normal agricultural practices under this Federal 
regulation.
  The gray area that exists in Federal waterfowl baiting regulations 
may

[[Page 18616]]

allow for the prosecution of law-abiding rice producers, landowners and 
hunters under certain conditions. In fact, this past hunting season was 
an excellent example of the confusion that this regulation causes. Rice 
producers went about their business of draining and preparing their 
fields for the winter crop, something we call in Louisiana water 
buffaloing. It is a practice that is used every year to smooth out the 
ruts and also to flatten the rice stubble that has been harvested. 
However, unbeknownst to some of the farmers, some of their normal 
agricultural practices, this water buffaloing, were actually considered 
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service game agents to be illegal 
according to the current Federal regulations. As a result, 2 days 
before the duck season opened in Louisiana, rumors had spread rampantly 
all over my district, and I represent the town of Gueydan which is 
known as the Duck Capital of the World, but 2 days before, the rumors 
were rampant whether any of the rice fields that were buffaloed by 
these farmers, whether these hunters were going to be prosecuted and 
ticketed for hunting over baited fields. Many of the hunters responded 
by canceling their hunts, their leases; and many of the farmers were 
needlessly delayed in preparing their rice fields for next year's crop.
  Hunting waterfowl in Louisiana, Mr. Chairman, is a very important 
industry. It is a way of life, it is very important for the local 
economy, and it is a very popular pastime for the people that visit the 
Sportsman's Paradise. As things stand right now, Mr. Chairman, many 
hunters are being intimidated out of leasing lands over this regulation 
about water buffaloing, even though there is an extremely valid 
argument that this practice is legal under Federal regulations. When 
these hunters cancel their leases, Mr. Chairman, not only do they 
needlessly miss out on a great opportunity of hunting ducks in south 
Louisiana, but they also take money out of the rural economies of south 
Louisiana that desperately need the support of a stable hunting 
industry. This can result in especially tough times for our rice 
farmers. As we all know, the past few years with the drought, the low 
prices have really cost the rice farmers a lot.
  That being said, I want to withdraw my amendment because of the 
assurances that I have with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and also with 
the staffs on both sides to work out this regulation. But this is an 
important amendment. I will continue to work towards that end. I want 
to thank the ranking member and the chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman's amendment is withdrawn.


              Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following:

     SEC. __. MISSOURI RIVER MANAGEMENT.

       In order for the Corps of Engineers to select revisions to 
     the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual that serve and 
     balance the diverse interests of all river uses, including 
     electric generation hydropower, flood control, navigation, 
     recreation, and environmental protection, and in order to 
     manage those uses under the Annual Operating Plan for the 
     Missouri River, during the formal consultations under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 between the Corps of Engineers 
     and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service regarding a 
     new biological assessment for the Missouri River Master 
     Control Manual, none of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used to subject management of the Missouri River to 
     the imposition of any regulatory action under the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Points of order are reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  We have an issue before us here in this Congress. Back in 1952, there 
was a large flood in the Missouri River that wiped out much of the 
bottomland and the farms and damaged our cities, Sioux City, Council 
Bluffs, Omaha, all the way down through. The Pick-Sloan program was 
established subsequent to that by the United States Congress for these 
purposes: first, flood control; second, power generation; third, 
agriculture production; and, fourth, barge traffic. Nothing in the 
record says it is set aside so that we can accommodate two birds and a 
fish which enter into this fray.
  About 10 years ago, actually it was in October of 1993, I came out 
here to Washington to a Midwest flood reconstruction and cleanup 
conference subsequent to our 1993 devastating flood. And there, Molly 
Beatty, the director of Fish and Wildlife, said, ``Agriculture looks 
upon this flood as an economic disaster. Frankly, we here at Fish and 
Wildlife look upon it as habitat rehabilitation.'' That is the day I 
learned the names of the least tern, the piping plover, and the pallid 
sturgeon; and that policy is manifested today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the King-Terry 
amendment. The long-term effects of reduced water flows on the Missouri 
River are very serious. In particular, power plants along the river 
rely on an adequate supply of water to operate, mostly for cooling 
purposes.
  Nebraska's two largest providers of electric power, Omaha Public 
Power and Nebraska Public Power districts, are strongly opposed to any 
flow changes to the Corps' 2003 operating plan, and for good reason. 
Last year, a total of 99 percent of the public power supplied in my 
district was dependent upon two plants that are dependent upon the 
Missouri River waters. Reduced flows could cost Nebraska and Iowa power 
plants tens of millions of dollars and cost the constituents in my 
district who would have to absorb these costs. Furthermore, drastically 
reduced river flows could make it nearly impossible for power producers 
along the river to comply with Federal water laws. Adequate river flows 
are also necessary for other essential services along the river.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a cosponsor of the King-Terry 
amendment. We offer this legislation to bring some clarity to a 
confusing legal situation regarding regulation of the Missouri River. 
This is an important issue for Nebraska and other Missouri River Basin 
states. Unfortunately, it is also an issue that has pitted region 
against region, state against state, interest against interest.
  Last weekend, a U.S. District Court judge here in Washington, D.C., 
ordered the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to reduce the flow of the 
Missouri River in order to protect three endangered species--the least 
tern, piping plover and pallid sturgeon. When the Justice department 
asked the judge for a two-week delay on the order, so that barges could 
be moved off the river, the request was denied.
  Since then, the Corps has determined that the D.C. district court 
decision is in direct conflict with a June ruling by the Eight Circuit 
Court of Appeals, which ordered the Corps to maintain sufficient 
Missouri River flows for navigation and power generation. The Corps has 
also stated that its 2003 management plan is based on sound scientific 
and legal grounds, and has not resulted in any loss of least tern or 
piping plover this year. As a result, the Corps will not reduce the 
river's flow.
  Corps officials say that reduced flows would have stranded at least 
10 barges, including one near Omaha filled with 1,300 tons of 
fertilizer. Stranded barges pose a serious safety concern, since they 
could drift downstream, destroying piers, bridge supports and other 
infrastructure. Worse, they could spill their contents into the river.
  The long-term effects of reduced flows are just as serious. In 
particular, power plants along the river rely on an adequate supply of 
water to operate--mostly for cooling purposes. Nebraska's two largest 
providers of electric power--Omaha Public Power and Nebraska Public 
Power districts--are strongly opposed to any flow changes to the Corps' 
2003 Operating Plan. And for good reason. Last year, a total of 99 
percent of Omaha Public Power District's generation came from Missouri 
River-based facilities. Nebraskans depend on these plants for reliable, 
low-cost electricity.
  Reduced flows could cost Nebraska and Iowa power plants tens of 
millions of dollars.

[[Page 18617]]

These costs would be directly passed to consumers, as downstream states 
would be forced to buy out-of-state electricity. Furthermore, 
drastically reduced river flows could make it nearly impossible for 
power producers along the river to comply with federal water laws.
  Adequate river flows are also necessary for other essential services 
for river communities--including clean drinking water, proper sewage 
treatment, and industrial uses. I want to note that my hometown of 
Omaha has committed millions of dollars to new development on its 
riverfront. Reduced flows would dry up marinas and leave recreational 
boaters grounded. A vibrant, flowing river is vital for cities like 
Omaha and Council Bluffs, as well as every other community along the 
river.
  The Bush Administration has announced that the Corps and the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service will begin formal consultation next week, as 
they work on a new Biological Assessment under the Endangered Species 
Act. In the meantime, constituents in my district, and those of many of 
my colleagues up and down the Missouri River, need some assurances. The 
amendment that Mr. King and I together have offered is a temporary 
provision to ensure the consideration of all interests--including 
electrical generation, agriculture, water quality, transportation, 
recreation, and the environment. The legislation would also remove the 
legal uncertainty created by conflicting court orders, while the Corps 
and the Fish & Wildlife Service address the important issues.
  The Administration has decided to commit an additional $42 million to 
help restore the Missouri River's ecosystem. I urge the House and our 
appropriators to work with the Administration, to ensure adequate 
resources are provided for this priority.
  I support the basic objectives of the Endangered Species Act. But it 
was never intended to overshadow each and every human interest. A 
balanced approach to managing the Missouri River can be achieved. 
Rushing to satisfy special interests--without considering all the 
economic and public safety consequences--is neither responsible nor 
fair to the taxpayers or those whose livelihoods depend on the river.
  Mr. Chairman, the river can be managed in a way that protects 
wildlife while also promoting the economy of the Midwest and the Plains 
states. That is the point of our amendment.
  I thank the Gentleman from Iowa for yielding.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Montana is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do not have a lot of love for the Endangered Species Act. I think 
that is well known within this Congress. I served on the Endangered 
Species Act reform committee. I think there are flaws. There are 
problems. But the difficulty is this is not the way to make changes 
within the system.

                              {time}  2030

  We had a hearing in Billings, Montana, not long ago with the general 
from the Army Corps of Engineers at which time we said, when are you 
going to get off the dime and do your job? We have been waiting for 13 
years for you to put the master plan back in place. You were supposed 
to have done it 13 years ago. You have not to this time.
  There are problems, and he told us at any given time there are 
lawsuits being filed by one State or another. At any given time 11 
States care and there is a lawsuit ongoing.
  I wish the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Janklow) was here. He was 
excused for health reasons, but I know I can speak for him. Because 
between his time when he was governor and governor, he was the attorney 
filing suit against the Federal Government because they had not gotten 
the master plan done.
  We cannot just ignore recreation upstate, we cannot just ignore the 
Endangered Species Act, and that is what this amendment does. So while 
I am willing to work with anybody in this Chamber to change the 
Endangered Species Act to make it make more sense, they cannot just 
ignore the judge's ruling of last week saying that there are three 
species that are endangered. We can, in fact, save those species. We 
would like to help in Montana. We have got the reservoir to do it, but 
let us have a master plan. We tell the Corps of Engineers, get their 
job done. We would not need amendments like this if we had it in place.
  We do not need this amendment, and I ask Members to oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the King amendment.
  Actually, there are two conflicting rulings right now that govern 
flows, and so it is not just one. The idea here is that we want high 
flows in the river in the spring, which will flood thousands of acres 
of farmland, and very low flows in the summer, which prevent any kind 
of navigation. The reason to do this is so the piping plover will build 
their nests high up on the banks of the river and will not get flooded 
out.
  The best way to handle this is to manually move the nests up the 
bank. They do not have to flood thousands of acres. They do not have to 
shut off the barge traffic. That is the simple way. It is the logical 
way to do it. And yet we are trying to mandate this thing by managing 
the river all because the piping plover and the least tern are 
endangered species or threatened species.
  So we think that this whole thing can be fixed, and we support the 
amendment.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, how much time did I have to begin with in 
opposition? Was it 5 minutes?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman has 5 minutes 
in opposition and has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I believe there is going to be other opposition. They asked for time. 
They do not seem to be in the Chamber, so I will just take 1 more 
minute of time.
  I do not deny that there are problems that need to be fixed. This is 
not the mechanism to do it.
  I have been to Nebraska helping my colleague deal with the endangered 
species issue. I agree with him on the endangered species issue. The 
problem is we cannot ignore the endangered species at this time until 
such time as we make the changes.
  Again, I call upon the Corps of Engineers to please get the master 
plan in place. Please let us end the litigation that continues. Let us 
get together, establish a consensus, work out a solution that can deal 
with barge traffic and recreation and the Endangered Species Act and 
all things that are entailed with the management of the Missouri River. 
But we cannot do it this way.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong support of the King amendment. This is a very timely 
amendment as I held a small business hearing today in my subcommittee 
dealing with the Endangered Species Act and the problems arising from 
it.
  When found in a recent court ruling, once again that ruling pushes 
common sense aside in favor of alleged endangered species headed toward 
extinction, and I refuse to sit by and watch judges like those who wish 
to ban God from our Pledge of Allegiance push farmers and small 
businesses around. If we do nothing, we are soon going to be adding the 
American farmer to the list of endangered species.
  This amendment inserts common sense where it is needed. Our courts 
act recklessly when they continue to place the concerns of animals and 
plants ahead of farmers and small businesses. I am taking the battle 
for common sense directly to the Endangered Species Act, and I welcome 
the gentleman from Iowa's (Mr. King) efforts to put common sense into 
the management of the Missouri River.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) 
has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) has 1 
minute remaining.

[[Page 18618]]


  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to speak to 
that issue.
  Following the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves), the point that he 
raises about the real endangered species here is the Midwestern farmer. 
It is not the Northwest rancher. It is the Midwestern farmer that is at 
risk here.
  I have been on every stretch of that river from Gavins Point down to 
Nebraska City. It is a long way. I have been on most of it twice. There 
is a lot of habitat up there for the least tern, the piping plover, and 
the pallid sturgeon, and we are creating more and more habitat as the 
years go by, and we are doing it based on pretty shaky science.
  As I look up and down that river, and I will tell the Members that 
the further south one goes, the shallower the banks are and the more 
likely it is to flood. When they unleash their spring rise, that means 
that the water backs up through our drainage system at the rate of 
about one mile a day, 12 to 15 miles from the River, more than 1 
million acres at risk here. And just that piece alone is enough to have 
more economic impact than this species that was created as a matter of 
convenience, a marriage of convenience between the fisheries and 
recreational interests and the environmental interests. So the habitat 
along the sand bar also is conducive, and they are nesting in other 
tributaries.
  Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order to the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order has yet to be made.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to leave enough time for the 
chairman to raise the point order, but I see one of my speakers is now 
here.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The chairman can raise a point of order in 
its own time. He does not need the gentleman's time for that. Is the 
gentleman prepared to yield back his time?
  Mr. REHBERG. Not to this point. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  When it comes to water issues, it knows no party lines, knows nothing 
ideological lines. It has basically one rule, upstream versus 
downstream; and the problem with the amendment that would be offered is 
that it takes no account whatsoever of the upstream interests.
  In North Dakota, when they built the Pick-Sloan projects and flooded 
the Missouri River, it took an area of our State the size of Rhode 
Island and put it under a lake bed. And now, as if that was not tough 
enough, they want to say, by the way, the size of this lake is going to 
gyrate dramatically, preventing them from making recreational 
development or any other use of that State of Rhode Island-size lake 
because we have got to keep all of the tension on downstream waterflow. 
We do not care about upstream. We have got to float our barges.
  Time moves on, and the economic interests of upstream eclipses 
downstream. The only thing that does not eclipse downstream is votes in 
the House.
  The courts have ruled on this matter, and they have ruled in 
inconsistent ways. It is going to the Supreme Court. It is not to be 
decided by an amendment before the House.


                             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 proposes to state a legislative position. I ask for a 
ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I will concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is conceded and 
sustained.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move strike the last word so that the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) could enter into a colloquy with our 
distinguished chairman.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and 
giving me this opportunity.
  I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  As the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) knows, in my 
congressional district of El Paso, Texas, we are fortunate to have a 
unit of the National Park Service, the Chamizal National Memorial. The 
Chamizal commemorates the peaceful 1967 settlement of a 100-year 
boundary dispute between the United States and Mexico.
  Today, the Chamizal is dedicated to furthering the spirit of goodwill 
and understanding between two nations by using the visual, literary, 
and performing arts as a medium of cultural interchange. The Memorial 
maintains a 500-seat theater and presents more than, on the average, 
300 performances a year. An outdoor stage is situated in the middle of 
the 66-acre park where the Park Service hosts the nationally recognized 
Border Folk Festival and many other significant cultural events. Also, 
the Memorial, which is located in one of the poorest ZIP codes in the 
country, sponsors a series of free outdoor concerts in the summer which 
often draw crowds of more than 10,000 people. In short, the Chamizal is 
the centerpiece of El Paso cultural and recreation life and is used 
frequently by visitors and residents alike.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the Chamizal lacks adequate parking 
facilities, especially for people with disabilities and the elderly, 
which significantly impedes their ability to enjoy our Memorial. 
Visitors are forced to park outside of the Memorial boundary and walk 
across very busy roadways to reach the facility, making access very 
difficult and oftentimes dangerous. It has gotten to the point that I 
am personally concerned that a visitor to the Memorial will be hurt, 
perhaps even killed, unless the situation is addressed.
  A new 400-space parking lot is desperately needed at the Chamizal 
National Memorial in order to meet the needs of visitors, particularly 
the elderly and disabled, as have been identified in the Memorial's 
General Management Plan and, Mr. Chairman, more importantly, to rectify 
a very serious safety hazard to the visiting public.
  In addition, the Chamizal is located at the main port of entry of El 
Paso between Mexico and the United States. This project would also 
allow our Park Service and their law enforcement rangers to better 
control and monitor access to the Memorial and to protect the security 
of visitors. The estimated cost would be approximately $1.2 million.
  Do I have the chairman's assurance that he and our ranking member 
will work with me as the bill before us today goes to conference?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I will work with the 
ranking member and the gentleman to resolve the problem.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on 
this issue, and we will certainly work with him.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
       Add at the end (before the short title) the following new 
     section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     by this Act may be used to propose, finalize, or implement 
     any change to subpart B of part 294 of title 36, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, entitled Protection of Inventoried 
     Roadless Areas, as added by the

[[Page 18619]]

     final rule and record of decision published in the Federal 
     Register on January 12, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 3244).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Points of order are reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee) and a Member opposed each will control 25 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment to the House to preserve 
the most significant, probably the most significant, conservation 
measure for our precious national assets in the last decade, the 2001 
roadless rule; and I do so by bringing to this House the spirit of 
Teddy Roosevelt who said, ``We want the active and zealous help of 
every man and woman farsighted enough to realize the importance from 
the standpoint of the Nation's welfare in the future of preserving the 
forests.'' That spirit of Teddy Roosevelt is one we have a chance to 
confirm and affirm today by upholding the roadless rule, the largest 
advance in our conservation history for several years.
  I think it is appropriate in talking about this just for a moment to 
think about the national assets which are now at risk. This picture of 
the Tongass National Forest, it has beautiful cathedral Sitka spruce 
and western hemlock, and it is a national treasure. It is a jewel in 
the crown of our national forests. It does not deserve nor should it be 
clearcut, and the roadless rule we seek to preserve in this amendment 
would prevent that depredation.

                              {time}  2045

  It is for us to consider the ramifications of not passing this 
amendment, and those ramifications are clear. The failure to pass this 
amendment tonight will allow this administration to clear-cut hundreds 
of thousands of acres of our most precious national forests. This is 
the picture that we will see on the television screens that Americans 
repudiate. Because Americans, when we adopted this roadless rule, in 
the largest, most democratic rule of all time, 2.2 million Americans 
volunteered to render their opinions. And what did they say? Over 93 
percent of them said do not render this clear-cutting to our most 
pristine national forests.
  Now, there are four reasons, substantive reasons, to adopt this 
amendment. Reason number one: this administration wants to essentially 
exempt the very largest, the very most pristine, the very most 
ecologically productive rain forest in the entire Western Hemisphere, 
the Tongass National Forest, and turn it into 300,000 acres of clear-
cut, arboreal rubble. And they intend to do this same thing in the 
Chugach National Forest. Alaska is a beautiful State. Many of our 
constituents have been there, and all of our constituents have an 
interest in not seeing this clear-cutting take place.
  Second, this administration has made clear that it intends to infect 
the lower 49 with the same policy disease. Because this administration 
has said quite clearly that it intends to do an amendment to the 
roadless rule that will essentially allow decisionmaking authority to 
move towards governors, rather than the United States House of 
Representatives, the Senate, and the executive authority of the United 
States. I quote Mr. Mark Rey, the Under Secretary of State, who will 
propose a change ``that would allow States to play a greater role in 
land use decisions that affect them.'' The roadless rule, which blocks 
development of 58 million acres of Federal land remains law; and he 
said, but, we will leave it up to the governors to see where on a 
limited basis relief may be appropriate.
  We know this for a fact. The stewardship responsibility belongs in 
this Chamber and this Chamber alone. There is already the ability for 
the governments to participate.
  The third reason, if I may. This Nation is already interlaced with 
roads. There are 377,810 miles of roads in our national forest system, 
enough to circle the globe 15 times, 15 times. And the unmet needs of 
maintenance on those roads is $10 billion. If somehow, in the midst of 
our $450 billion deficits we can scrape up $5, the first $5 we ought to 
spend ought to be in protecting the roads that our people already enjoy 
going up to the lakes fishing, taking their kids hiking, which are now 
falling into disrepair and washing out. This is a fiscally sound 
measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment is bad policy. We should not stop all activities on 
the national level. Each national forest deserves to get decisions 
based on local commissions and based on specific situations.
  We have four lawsuits going on this already. One Federal judge has 
already ruled that there are problems with the Clinton administration's 
roadless rule.
  We need to have careful consideration before we lock up these areas 
and prevent multiple use. Wilderness area designations should be done 
site by site, not at this broad-brush national level.
  It is possible that some forests and roadless areas may need some 
treatments to reduce hazardous fuels. We need to be careful that we do 
not make a national policy that could lead to dangerous conditions.
  Half the areas covered by the Clinton roadless rule are at risk for 
catastrophic fire. The rule makes treatment of these areas a low 
priority when they should be a high priority. Already this year, fires 
that have started in roadless areas have destroyed hundreds of 
thousands of acres and burned several hundred homes.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the argument which we just heard 
in opposition to the amendment is that as a matter of public safety we 
should not continue to follow the Clinton roadless rule.
  I would like to share some facts which I think undermine that 
argument. Ninety-eight percent of the fires that have occurred in 
roadless areas have been controlled while they are small. On the other 
hand, the Forest Service has found that fires are twice as likely to 
occur in roaded and log areas. Only 14 percent of roadless areas are 
considered at high risk for potentially devastating wildfires. There is 
no public safety argument to justify not having restrictions on 
building roads.
  What really is at stake here, as was outlined by Taxpayers for Common 
Sense, is that our tax dollars throughout the United States are being 
used to subsidize the creation of these roads and national forests not 
for safety purposes, but to subsidize transportation for the timber 
industry that is harvesting timber in these parks.
  Now, those of my colleagues who represent parts of the country whose 
economies benefit from harvesting timber do not need to apologize to 
fight for those jobs, but what my colleagues are not entitled to is to 
ask the rest of the country to subsidize those businesses.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Davis) say harvesting timber in parks? Is that what the gentleman 
said? Does the gentleman believe that is occurring? If so, then the 
gentleman is misinformed. Again, the gentleman is misinformed.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am 
referring to commercial logging; and I know the gentleman, who is an 
expert in this area, can perhaps use more appropriate terminology, but 
here is the final point I want to make.
  The statistics suggest that there is between a $13 million and a 
billion-dollar backlog in terms of what we need to do to construct and 
maintain roads in these parks. And instead of concentrating on that, we 
are going to be subsidizing commercial logging by building roads not 
for public safety.

[[Page 18620]]

  For those reasons, I would urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to point out to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), the gentleman is from Tampa, 
Florida. I am not even sure the gentleman has been out to the public 
lands. We live on the public lands out there. I am getting a little 
tired of some of my colleagues who have no idea of what public lands 
mean, who do not live out there on those public lands, who do not 
suffer the wrath of forest fires that we are suffering right now in the 
West. Instead, my colleagues stand up here gallantly and say, hey, the 
President, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) says, the 
President is going to clear-cut tens of millions of acres. What a bunch 
of baloney. That has more fiction in it than Harry Potter.
  Mr. Chairman, do my colleagues want to know where there is friction 
in this country? It is not between Democrats and Republicans; it is 
between you folks in the cities that have never experienced mountain 
life or life on the public lands, that do not know what fire does to us 
out there. Do my colleagues know what kills more endangered species 
than any other thing in this country? It is wildfire.
  Now, I invite any of my colleagues to come out there sometime with 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), either to the wilderness 
areas that he has proposed or, in effect, what we have here, de facto 
wilderness areas under this bill; and my colleagues can tell me what 
happens when they will not let us drive a fire truck up there. My 
colleagues can tell us what happens when they will not let us fly a 
helicopter and land it up there. My bet is during the fire season, I 
say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), with all due respect, 
the gentleman is sitting comfortably in Tampa.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Inslee amendment.
  Passage of this amendment is critical because our pristine 
wilderness, which I have been to, I have been to the public lands, 
particularly our national forests, face an imminent threat.
  In June, the Bush administration announced a revision to the National 
Roadless Area Conservation Rule to exclude those crown jewels of the 
national forest system, the Tongass and the Chugach, where I have been, 
which constitutes a quarter of the lands covered in this roadless rule. 
In addition, the administration gives State Governors the authority to 
opt out of the rule. This decision was made despite over 2.2 million 
comments and 600 public meetings and hearings on the roadless policy, 
95 percent in support of protecting the Tongass and the Chugach.
  Weakening landmark environmental protection was the most blatant 
example to date of this administration choosing special interests over 
the health and the safety of citizens and our environment. It is not 
enough that the administration refuses to recognize the dangers of 
global warming; not enough that they want to weaken the Clean Air Act. 
Now they want to decimate the world's last remaining old-growth 
temperate rain forest under the guise of preventing forest fires.
  When it comes to the stewardship of our precious forestlands, it is 
abundantly clear that the administration's priorities have nothing to 
do with taxpayers or the environment. It is apparent that they have 
more concern for the timber industry than for the wilderness lands, the 
wildlands, and our national forests. And in this language, there is 
opportunity for fire apparatus to get through. My colleague who 
preceded me was wrong.
  I am the author of the Alaska Rain Forest Conservation Act, with 115 
bipartisan cosponsors. It would protect the Tongass and the Chugach by 
codifying previous policy from the administration. I believe it is time 
to permanently safeguard these areas of unparalleled ecological value. 
We cannot let these lands be exploited. They are something that we 
should hold dear for years to come. They are our national legacy. 
Support the Inslee amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding 
me this time. For those who have been speaking, there will be roadless 
areas in their districts.
  The roadless rule was struck down this week for the second time. The 
first time it was reinstated by the appeal of the liberal ninth 
circuit. Like many of the actions that have been taken by the so-called 
Clinton administration, if it was an administration, on their way out 
of office this rule was found too unacceptable. Luckily, for the State 
of Alaska and the Forest Service, and the Bush administration has 
already realized, ANILCA, which most of my colleagues were not around, 
settled the matter of multiple use in Alaska forests. We cannot rewrite 
existing law. They are rightfully progressing with the removing of the 
Tongass and Chugach from consideration under this rule. Now, they will 
be able to use property management for all of America's forests, not 
just Alaskan ones.
  Again, it always reminds me, why in the world would somebody from 
Connecticut and Florida come down to talk about the State of Alaska? I 
know that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is from Washington 
State, but does not know anything about the Tongass, does not 
understand what we are talking about here. This is existing law. What 
my colleagues are trying to do is something that is incorrect to my 
people and to the forests, to the harvesting of the forest, which is a 
management tool.
  And, by the way, the most we can cut out of 19 million acres in the 
Tongass, the most we can cut is less than 500,000 acres, if that is 
possible. And every time I hear this argument, I wonder where are you 
from. What are you thinking about? Are you just mimicking the words fed 
into your ears from the so-called environmental community? What an air-
headed idea that is. I say shame on you.
  Look at the facts. I listened to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) a while ago talking about science, including science. 
The studies on the Tongass have been made by the scientists. They said 
what we are trying to do is correct, and you want to ignore that 
because you are pandering to a group of people. Shame on you.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 40 seconds to myself.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has graciously 
suggested I know nothing about the Tongass National Forest. I do know 
this about the Tongass National Forest. Every single one of our 
constituents of every single Member of the House of Representatives is 
a coowner of the Tongass National Forest. And I know that that phoney 
settlement they had up there was a scam between people who used to work 
for the timber industry's lobbyists, not a judicial decision.
  And I know another thing, in answer to this fire red herring. We are 
going to hear a lot about fire during this debate. We have the ability 
to deal with fire in the existing roadless area rule. We have the 
regulation right here which allows specifically, if I can read it: 
``When a road is needed to protect public health and safety in cases of 
imminent threat of flood, fire, or other catastrophic event, road-
building is permitted.''

                              {time}  2100

  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

[[Page 18621]]

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).
  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

[[Page 18622]]

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. 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.
  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 environ-
mentalism, 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

[[Page 18623]]

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. 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 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.

[[Page 18624]]

  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 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.

[[Page 18625]]


  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 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!

[[Page 18626]]

       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. 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.
  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,

[[Page 18627]]

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.
  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

[[Page 18628]]

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:
       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

[[Page 18629]]

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 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.

[[Page 18630]]

  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 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

[[Page 18631]]

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 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

[[Page 18632]]

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).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado 
attempts to attack an Interior Department rule

[[Page 18633]]

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. 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

[[Page 18634]]

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.
  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 laws 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.

[[Page 18635]]

  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 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

[[Page 18636]]


     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 
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

[[Page 18637]]


     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)
     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.

[[Page 18638]]


  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 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.

[[Page 18639]]

  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.
  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.

                          ____________________