[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 29767-29769]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION ADVANCEMENT ACT OF 2003

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 421) to reauthorize the United States Institute for 
Environmental Conflict Resolution, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 421

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

        This Act may be cited as the ``Environmental Policy and 
     Conflict Resolution Advancement Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND.

        Section 13 of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and 
     Excellence in National Environmental and Native American 
     Public Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5609) is amended by 
     striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund.--There is 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Environmental Dispute 
     Resolution Fund established by section 10 $4,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, of which--
       ``(1) $3,000,000 shall be used to pay operations costs 
     (including not more than $1,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses); and
       ``(2) $1,000,000 shall be used for grants or other 
     appropriate arrangements to pay the costs of services 
     provided in a neutral manner relating to, and to support the 
     participation of non-Federal entities (such as State and 
     local governments, tribal governments, nongovernmental 
     organizations, and individuals) in, environmental conflict 
     resolution proceedings involving Federal agencies.''.


[[Page 29768]]


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Udall) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 421.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are here today to consider H.R. 
421, the Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Advancement Act 
of 2003. H.R. 421 amends the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence 
in National Environmental and Native American Policy Act of 1992 to 
reauthorize the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund.
  Specifically, the bill authorizes the fund at $4 million and extends 
it through fiscal year 2008. The bill also stipulates how the funding 
is to be distributed: $3 million to pay for the operating costs of the 
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, and $1 million for 
grants to encourage participation of non-Federal entities in Federal 
environmental disputes.
  In 1998 the Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution was 
established as part of the National Environmental Foundation. The 
Foundation administers the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund. The 
institute was created to assist in the resolution of Federal 
environmental, natural resources, and public lands conflicts and 
controversies through facilitated negotiation, mediation, and 
collaborative problem-solving. The Environmental Dispute Resolution 
Fund is maintained separately from the Udall Trust Fund and provides 
the financial support for the operation of the institute.
  I want to thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), for introducing this legislation and for ensuring 
that it was brought before us today. I want also to urge my colleagues 
to join me in support of H.R. 421, the Environmental Policy and 
Conflict Resolution Advancement Act of 2003.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
bill which was introduced by our colleague and my good friend, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). As a cosponsor of the bill, I want 
to thank the Committee on Resources chairman, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) and the ranking member, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall), as well as the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for 
making it possible for the House to consider the bill today.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) has 
explained, the bill would reauthorize the United States Institute for 
Environmental Conflict Resolution. The institute is part of the Morris 
K. Udall Foundation, which is located at the University of Arizona in 
Tucson. Its purpose is to provide mediation and facilitation to help 
resolve environmental conflicts.

                              {time}  1815

  The bill would authorize appropriation of $4 million annually for the 
institute's work in fiscal years 2004 through 2008. The institute's 
projects involve a wide range of environmental natural resource and 
public lands issues. It provides impartial, nonpartisan expertise and 
services to all parties involved, and works with private individuals 
and organizations as well as with Federal, State, local agencies and 
Indian tribes.
  Over the past 5 years, it has had requests for assistance in more 
than 100 cases across 30 States. And there is every indication that the 
number of requests will increase in the years ahead.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial bill that will 
reauthorize an important program that aims at resolving conflicts and 
reducing the need for litigation. I urge its approval.
  Again, I want to thank the leaders of the Committee on Resources and 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce for bringing this 
important bill forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the author of the legislation.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for managing this bill on the floor this 
afternoon and the Committee on Education and the Workforce for bringing 
this bill forward, also the Committee on Resources represented today by 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) on the minority side. Both have 
worked to bring this bill to the floor, and I thank them for the 
support they have given to this.
  I do rise in support of H.R. 421, Environmental Policy and Conflict 
Resolution Advancement Act of 2003. The bill has been explained by both 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall); and I will not go into more detail except to say 
that, of course, it does reauthorize for a period of years and provides 
funding for that same period of years for the U.S. Institute for 
Environmental Conflict Resolution, which is part of the Morris K. Udall 
Foundation.
  As we all know, Morris Udall was a beloved Member of this body for 
many years and devoted much of his life to natural resources and to 
environmental issues and to environmental conflict resolution. So I can 
think of nothing more appropriate than this organization and this 
institute which works to resolve these conflicts to have it named after 
Morris Udall.
  The institute has been around since 1998 as an impartial, nonpartisan 
institution which provides professional expertise and services and 
resources to parties that are involved in environmental disputes. It 
assists in resolving those environmental and natural resources issues, 
public lands conflicts that involve the Federal Government and other 
governmental agencies. And it deals with conflicts on a nationwide 
basis.
  In 5 years of operation the institute has been involved in more than 
300 conflict resolution cases and projects. The gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Udall) referred to 100; but on an informal basis, they have been 
involved in at least a couple hundred more other than that. It does, as 
we have already heard, authorize $4 million, $1 million of which would 
be for a participation fund which would assist the stakeholders, 
communities' agricultural interests, resources users, tribes that are 
involved in environmental disputes with the Federal Government. And it 
would help them participate in alternative conflict resolution 
processes. The funds are intended to continue general services and 
provide assistance to the Federal and State agencies and tribal 
governments.
  Mr. Speaker, this institute has already more than paid for itself. 
Literally countless numbers of disputes have been resolved in a way 
that have saved taxpayers millions of dollars by resolving them quickly 
and resolving them in a way that avoided litigation. The institute does 
work, and the reason it can do the work that it does is because its 
work is accepted by both sides, by all sides. It works in a nonpartisan 
fashion. If works in a fashion which brings the sides together to 
resolve the dispute. It is a model for what we should be using to 
resolve environmental disputes.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 29769]]


  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 421.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________