[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 13247-13248]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 17, 2004

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4568) making 
     appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and 
     for other purposes:

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my disappointment 
about the rejection of several amendments offered to the Interior 
Appropriations Bill, which aimed at protecting the flora and fauna of 
our country. These amendments would at least have undone some of the 
harm the current administration has done to our environment since it 
has taken office.
  It has always been the priority of this administration to serve 
special industrial interests and not to preserve the natural beauties 
of our country. Clean rivers and oceans, healthy forests, fresh air and 
a diverse wildlife have not been of any concern to this executive and 
the Bush Presidency has thereby rightly been called the most anti-
environmental one in the modern era by several grassroots 
organizations.
  The New York Times, in an editorial published two days ago, called 
upon the House of Representatives ``to partly redeem itself'' from its 
failures to hinder the anti-environmental policies of the President and 
to endorse stricter environmental policies by passing several 
amendments to the Interior Appropriations Bill. Unfortunately, the 
House missed this opportunity for redemption.
  A majority of 224 members rejected Representative Rush Holt's 
amendment prohibiting the use of funds to permit recreational 
snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park. Visitors 
go to our national parks to experience the miracles of nature and to 
find quietness and relaxation. Snowmobiles not only pollute the 
environment, but they also disturb humans and wildlife alike. I do not 
understand why so many Members of the House decided to vote against 
this amendment, which benefits for our environment and our citizens so 
heavily outweigh the sacrifice of not being able to ride a snowmobile 
in these particular parks.
  I was also dismayed that a majority of my colleagues decided to vote 
against an amendment offered by Representative Maurice Hinchey to stop 
the killing of buffalos in Yellowstone National Park. The slaughter of 
these gracious animals is not only cruel but also expensive for 
American taxpayers. The National Park Service currently spends $1.2 
million a year to kill buffalos only because they do exactly as their 
instinct tells them: They migrate. They get killed because they do not 
observe state borders and dare to cross from Wyoming to Montana during 
the winter. They get killed under the premise that they transmit 
diseases to cattle--a thesis that has never been confirmed and for some 
reason is a concern to farmers in Montana, but not to farmers in 
Wyoming.
  Another amendment benefiting the health of our environment was 
offered by Representative Tom Udall and again defeated. It would have 
prohibited the use of funds for the implementation of the Forest's 
Service new planning regulations. These regulations, which have been 
proposed by the administration in 2002, will substantially weaken the 
protection of our nation's wildlife and natural resources and reduce 
public participation in the environmental decision-making process.
  Representative Nick Rahall made an effort to present the interests of 
Native Americans in this country by offering an amendment protecting 
their sacred sites located on federal

[[Page 13248]]

lands from energy development and other exploitation. The Native 
Americans in this country have undergone and are still suffering from 
discrimination and poverty. Representative Rahall's amendment would at 
least have ensured that the holiest sites of the tribes are not further 
destroyed by capitalist interests. Nick Rahall asked us, the Members of 
the House, how we would feel if open-pit mining was allowed in 
Arlington Cemetery or bulldozers leveled down the Wailing Wall in 
Jerusalem to build a highway. Only imagining these scenarios give me 
feelings of grief and anger. But just these things have happened to 
sacred sites of the Native Americans and it is a disgrace that so many 
members voted against Representative Rahall's amendment to stop this 
evil.
  But I am happy that at least one strong environmental amendment to 
the Interior Appropriations Bill was passed by the House of 
Representatives. This was Representative Steve Chabot's amendment to 
prohibit the use of funds to plan or construct forest development roads 
in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. Last year, the Bush 
administration announced to completely eliminate the Roadless Area 
Conservation Rule's protection for the Tongass National Forest in 
Alaska and to severely weaken the rule everywhere else in the National 
Forest System. The Tongass National Forest is a national heritage. It 
is the largest forest our nation has and the biggest intact temperate 
rainforest worldwide. The exemption of ``America's Rainforest'' from 
the roadless protection rule was another present of the Bush 
administration to big industrial interests, in this case timber logging 
companies and was paid for by the American taxpayers.
  Representative Chabot's amendment will only restrict the construction 
of roads that are subsidized by American taxpayers and not those paid 
for by the timber industry. I do not think that this amendment goes far 
enough to sufficiently protect this pristine forest, but I think it is 
a step into the right direction.
  I sincerely hope, that those Members of the House of Representatives 
who have voted against the aforementioned amendments will wake up and 
recognize that an environment once destroyed will not be easy and 
mostly impossible to restore. I hope that they will remember that there 
will be future generations who need clean air and water, healthy oceans 
and forests and a diverse wildlife not only for their enjoyment, but 
for their survival.

                          ____________________