[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5541-5557]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1084 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2016.

                              {time}  1317


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2016) to establish the National Landscape Conservation System, 
and for other purposes, with Mr. Holden in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2016 is simple, straightforward 
legislation. The bill would provide statutory authorization for a 
conservation system which was established administratively nearly a 
decade ago. This is not a land management policy bill, rather, it seeks 
to finally grant the National Landscape Conservation System the 
congressional recognition that it truly deserves.
  The NLCS covers approximately 26 million acres, about 10 percent of 
the land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, including all 
national scenic and historic trails, national conservation areas, 
national monuments, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and 
wilderness study areas managed by the BLM.
  The individual lists which make up the National Landscape 
Conservation System are unique and beautiful. Canyons of the Ancients 
in Colorado, Craters of the Moon in Idaho, Agua Fria and Vermillion 
Cliffs in my home State of Arizona, these are poetic names for poetic 
landscapes. And Mr. Chairman, these units are truly nationally 
significant, ecologically, scientifically and culturally. For example, 
Agua Fria National Monument is remarkable for its natural splendor, 
with the Agua Fria River cutting through Sonoran Desert mesas, and for 
its unique and diverse wildlife, which includes pronghorn antelope, 
javelina, and the gila monster, among many others. But the monument 
also preserves significant and intact pueblo ruins, some with more than 
100 rooms, terraced agricultural fields, which bear witness to the 
lives and stories of those that came long before us.
  Like Agua Fria, each of the units included within the NLCS was 
created to conserve unique cultural and natural resources. But while 
the individual monument or wild and scenic river or other designations 
which make up the system are about conservation, creation of the NLCS 
itself has more to do with accomplishing the full mission of the Bureau 
of Land Management. From 1946 to 1996, very large, new national 
monuments created under the Antiquities Act was removed from BLM 
management and turned over to National Park Service.
  The National Landscape Conservation System was created to assure that 
these valued public lands remain in the BLM system, allowing the agency 
to manage them and fully realize the conversation aspect of its 
multiple-use mandate.
  The NLCS has been enormously successful. Visitation to these areas is 
increasing as more people are learning about BLM's spectacular 
landscapes. From its red rock deserts to its rugged coastlines, NLCS 
units provide unique and world-class outdoor recreation opportunities 
for hikers, hunters, anglers, climbers and bird watchers, among many 
others. Sportsmen consider these areas essential not only for their 
recreational value, but also because the NLCS is critical to the 
conservation of fish and wildlife habitat on BLM lands.
  Mr. Chairman, opponents of this bill seem to be concerned that it 
will somehow change or alter the current management of these lands. 
This is simply not true. Included in H.R. 2016 is a section that 
specifically states, ``Nothing in this act shall be construed to 
enhance, diminish or modify any law or proclamation (or regulations 
related to such law or proclamation) under which the components of the 
system identified in section 3(b) were established or are managed, 
including but not limited to the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act, the Wilderness act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 
the National Trails System Act, and the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act.''
  After almost a decade of success, it is time for Congress to finally 
put its stamp of approval on this system by formally authorizing NLCS. 
H.R. 2016 does nothing more or less than write the NLCS into statute. 
The bill will not alter management of a single acre of Federal, State 
or private land. Enactment of this legislation will not change the 
management of these areas, but it will change the perception; it will 
not upgrade their protection, but it will upgrade their stature.
  The coalition of organizations supporting 2016 is as diverse as the 
system itself, including environmental groups, the American Hiking 
Society, the National Council of Churches, American Sportfishing 
Association, Boone and Crockett Club, National Trust for Historic 
Preservation, National Wildlife Federation, and the Outdoor Industry 
Association. The Bush Administration has enthusiastically supported the 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, what we have here are uniquely American places that 
should and must be recognized. The NLCS deserves congressional 
sanction, and we should grant it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  You know, there was a time when Pete Rose was trying out to make a

[[Page 5542]]

baseball team, and the scouting report said that ``Rose can't make a 
double play, he can't throw, he can't hit left-handed and he can't 
run.'' The first time Fred Astaire tried to make a movie preview, the 
report coming back on Fred Astaire was, ``he can't act, he's slightly 
bald, and he can dance a little bit.'' The Boston Red Sox were 
reviewing a new outfielder, and the scouting report came back saying, 
``he's not the Red Sox type.'' The guy they were actually scouting was 
Willie Mays. Which simply means, in life, sometimes what we see and 
sometimes what we're told is not necessarily the reality of situations. 
As groups and individual Members of Congress are starting to see this 
bill for what the details are is one of the reasons why we see some of 
those groups peeling off on their support.
  Why, some of the issues we raised in committee, it was said they're 
not really issues, now there are amendments that have been proposed by 
the majority party to deal with those so-called ``nonissues.''
  It is said all we're trying to do here is codify and make permanent 
an institution that's already in existence, but it is much, much more 
than that. My freshman year, the goal of the freshman class was to try 
to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in government. Sometimes I wish we 
were still doing this because today we have reached the mother lode of 
waste, fraud and abuse.
  This is an entity, the National Landscape Conservation System, which 
spends money, but it does not hire anyone, it does not fire anyone, it 
does not write regulations, it does not repeal regulations, it doesn't 
administer any land, it doesn't manage any land. For the life of me, we 
have been trying to figure out what this thing does other than spend 
$50 million a year to encourage and to bring attention to certain 
particular areas.
  We are told that this bill would not change any of that. This bill 
apparently does nothing to an entity that does nothing. But I'm going 
to portend to you that the reason this entity has been so successful so 
far is simply because it's been under the auspices of the Secretary of 
the Interior. But if, indeed, we codify this and put this into statute, 
an entity right now which sticks out on a flowchart like a sore thumb 
that doesn't really do anything will change, it will change 
significantly, and all of a sudden it will start to do something. And 
that's where the danger arises. Because when we wrote down the values 
of this supposed new system, they are extremely vague, which means, 
first of all, it opens us up to lawsuits right and left. If the 
amendment that will be offered later does not pass to try and limit the 
impact of those lawsuits, we are offering this Nation a great deal of 
harm and potential peril.
  We have spent $50 million every year on what can best be called a 
redundant organization, but it actually should be changed. And the 
question obviously is, will we be spending more in this society? Now, 
once again, the proponents say nothing will change, it's not going to 
cost more, CBO says it's not going to cost more, there will be no 
regulations. The chairman of the subcommittee that sponsored this bill 
was asked once again at one point in time, will this create more cost, 
more regulation, and the answer was simply this: Well, you go in to 
establish the system, and then you go to step two. What that step two 
is is the fear that happens to be here. The values that have never been 
identified in this legislation dealing these parts of land deal with 
such issues as recreation. Amendments to actually define that were not 
allowed to be discussed. It deals with border security. Amendments to 
define that were not allowed to be discussed. We will have another 
border security amendment which, in my estimation, does anything more 
than establish the status quo as our policy when the status quo is not 
sufficient.
  We will have discussions over grazing issues and energy issues. We 
should have had discussions over private end holding issues. All of 
those should be defined as part of the values that we are talking about 
here.
  The Department of Interior has been very positive about this. They 
said they support this concept because it allows them to do what has 
always been done that is the difference between BLM monuments and parks 
versus national park monuments and parks, and that is, the value of 
multiple use. But in committee, when we tried to amend the language so 
that multiple use was a value to be maintained, it was defeated on a 
party line vote. And when we went to the Rules Committee and tried to 
make sure that we had a chance to discuss this, to put in multiple use 
as the value that is significant, it was again denied the ability even 
to discuss that on the floor. And that is the sum and substance that is 
different.
  Now, we are dealing with a system that impacts people and their 
lives. It was said by Sir Henry Maine, ``Nobody is at liberty to attack 
civil property and say at the same time they value civilization because 
the history of two can never be disentangled.'' And that is where we're 
at.
  Unless this bill is significantly modified, this bill will do harm to 
people. Unless this bill is changed and this system is moved back, it 
will do significant harm to people.
  We have problems within this entity right now. Rather than solve any 
of these problems, it provides vague and fluffy language that will make 
the situation worse. It does not solve the problems, but it does create 
a permanent statutory entity without any solutions and, indeed, goes 
the other direction and makes permanent solutions to our problems more 
difficult actually to accomplish.
  This simply is a bill whose time is not now. This is a bill that does 
not tell us exactly what to expect. It opens up the Federal Government 
to all sorts of potential lawsuits, and doesn't actually come up with a 
value that makes BLM land different than Park Service land, which is 
multiple use. That phrase has to be in that bill if this bill has any 
chance of having any some rationality of purpose.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), for his excellent leadership on this 
issue. He is the sponsor of it. I rise as chairman of the Committee on 
Natural Resources to lend my strong support thereto.
  The National Landscape Conservation System was administratively 
established 8 years ago. It is comprised of Western public lands under 
the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management that have been placed 
in conservation status either by presidential proclamation or by acts 
of Congress.
  The BLM refers to the NLCS as ``Landscapes of the American Spirit.'' 
And the agency is enthusiastic about this system. And rightly so 
because it works. It works to highlight some of the unique features of 
these lands, and it helps BLM shed its imagine of simply being the 
Bureau of Livestock and Mining.
  The pending legislation is supported by the Bush administration. I 
know that may raise some suspicion in certain quarters, but I can 
assure those of my colleagues who may have reservations with the bill 
due to this fact that the Natural Resources Committee has thoroughly 
examined the legislation. And under Chairman Grijalva's leadership, I'm 
here to assure you that there are no hidden provisions of this 
legislation to grow even more oil rigs on our already pressed public 
lands or to overthrow past presidential proclamations creating national 
monuments. This bill is a congressional stamp of approval of the 
existing NLCS system.
  Each of the 850 or so areas that are part of this system came into it 
through different avenues. Many were designated by Congress as 
wilderness areas or national wild and scenic rivers, national 
conservation areas, or national historic and scenic trails. Others were 
designated by Presidents as national monuments under the Antiquities 
Act. As such, each element of

[[Page 5543]]

the NLCS carries with it its own management regime. There is no one 
size fits all. The pending legislation does not change that.
  And to make that point crystal clear, the bill contains a savings 
clause. It is a sweeping savings clause stating that nothing in this 
legislation enhances, diminishes, or modifies any law or proclamation 
under which the various components of the NLCS were established.
  Later during debate on this bill, an amendment will be offered by the 
floor manager, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), which will 
further elaborate on the savings clause by specifying nothing in this 
legislation can impede Homeland Security. I urge my colleagues to 
support that amendment. In addition, there will be an amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Jason Altmire, to further 
elaborate on the savings clause as it relates to hunting, fishing, 
trapping, and recreational shooting that may take place on NLCS lands. 
This is a constructive amendment and one which we worked with my good 
friends at the National Rifle Association, and I urge my colleagues to 
support that amendment as well.
  There are other amendments which fall under the category of putting 
forth a solution in search of a problem which simply does not exist, 
and I would urge opposition to those amendments.
  So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the bill and again 
commend the gentleman from Arizona for managing it on the floor today, 
for his sponsorship, and his valuable leadership.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Idaho, a member of the committee (Mr. Sali).
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, those recreating in Idaho, whether residents 
or tourists, will likely head to lands encompassed by this bill. More 
than 2 million acres in Idaho alone will be affected, which will in 
turn affect many of the uses enjoyed in Idaho, four wheelers and off-
highway motorbikes, hunting, boating, and shooting. All of that today 
is at risk because of the legislation before us.
  But more than just recreation is threatened by the bill. Federally 
managed public lands, treasured by so many, are in jeopardy of being 
cut off except to those who have the health and the strength to hike or 
perhaps to mountain bike.
  My 84-year-old mother can only walk with a walker but still enjoys 
the outdoors. Mr. Chairman, look at that smile. I think everyone wishes 
that their mother could have that kind of enjoyment. With activities 
including off-highway vehicle use threatened under this bill, my mother 
and others like her will have no meaningful way to enjoy these lands. 
The same is true of people with disabilities. Today we are telling 
those individuals that these 2 million acres in Idaho and 26 million 
acres across the West will not be accessible to them and will only be 
available to a small segment of our society with very narrow uses.
  Public lands should be available for everyone, including the elderly 
and people with disabilities, not just a select few. We can and must do 
better.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield such time as she 
may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), an 
original cosponsor of H.R. 2016.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the National 
Landscape Conservation System Act. This bill will help protect some of 
our Nation's most treasured landscapes. I want to commend my chairmen, 
both Mr. Grijalva, the subcommittee chairman from Arizona; and Mr. 
Rahall, the full committee chairman, for bringing this important 
legislation to the floor today.
  The NLCS was created administratively in 2000 to guide the management 
of the national monuments, wilderness areas, and other significant 
public lands under the Bureau of Land Management's authority. Many of 
these lands, like the Carrizo Plain National Monument and California 
Coastal Monument in my congressional district, are on par with our 
national parks in their beauty and value to the American people.
  Unfortunately, the system has taken a back seat in our country's land 
conservation efforts. It's been shortchanged in funding in the 
President's budget year after year. There are not enough resources or 
staff to properly manage these lands. And reports continue to surface 
that the natural, cultural, and archeological sites on NLCS lands are 
being overrun or destroyed.
  Today we can take the first step in improving the stewardship of 
these lands by passing H.R. 2016. This is a straightforward bill. It 
simply writes the NLCS into law. I want to stress to my colleagues this 
bill does not change how any of the units in the system are presently 
managed. Grazing rights, water rights, and public access to the areas 
are unchanged. The bill does, however, recognize that these landscapes 
are of great significance to the American people and should be managed 
to protect their values. Over the coming decades, these lands will 
become more widely used, and we must be prepared to handle that 
increase.
  Finally, we have other areas that should be part of NLCS, and I hope 
they are, places like the Piedras Blancas Light Station in any 
district. I hope this will special place as one example, a place on 
California's central coast, will be soon be added to the system through 
legislation I have already introduced.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a logical and needed next step toward 
improving the management of the units that make up the NLCS. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2016.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute 
to one of the sponsors of this bill, our good friend and colleague from 
California, where obviously at this particular time both physically and 
intellectually we are on different sides of the field on this 
particular issue, but I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Bono Mack).
  Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the ranking member for his generosity in 
yielding me this time.
  I rise today as a co-Chair of the NLCS Caucus and supporter of H.R. 
2016. This system, which is managed by the executive branch, deserves 
the oversight of Congress that comes with the passage of this 
legislation. One unit of the NLCS, the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 
Mountains National Monument, is within my congressional District. This 
monument is instructive to today's debate. The unit was created by 
Congress in 2000 and was the direct result of the desire to have the 
public get involved in the creation of a large Federal land 
designation. The result is an impressive example of Federal lands that 
are to this day managed in their own unique manner. The intention of 
this bill is to continue the management and specific uses that are 
allowed on Federal lands across the country, the same approach taken at 
this monument ever since the creation of the NLCS in 2000.
  With bipartisan backing and the endorsement of the administration, 
again, the endorsement of the administration, it is my hope that we can 
agree to move this bill forward.
  Again, I thank my ranking member very much for his generosity and his 
time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New Jersey, a sponsor of the legislation (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape 
Conservation System Act.
  Think about it. Ranging from the awe-inspiring volcanic landscape of 
the craters of the Moon National Monument in Idaho to the majestic 
White Mountain National Recreation Area in Alaska, the Bureau of Land 
Management's National Landscape Conservation System protects some of 
the most spectacular landscapes in America. Altogether it protects 26 
million acres of America's diverse public lands from Alaskan tundra to 
red-rock wilderness, deep river canyons to ocean coasts, to American 
Indian cliff dwellings, and our Nation's oldest trails. These sites 
provide Americans with unique venues

[[Page 5544]]

for recreation, for wildlife viewing, for exploring history, for 
scientific research, and for a wide range of traditional uses.
  H.R. 2016 would ensure that all 800 sites that comprise the NLCS 
remain a cohesive and protected system for generations to come. Now, 
currently these are recognized only through BLM administrative 
regulations. There's no guarantee that these beautiful sites, that this 
system, will continue to exist even 5 years from now.
  President Lyndon Johnson put it well. He said, ``If future 
generations are to remember us more with gratitude than sorrow, we must 
achieve more than just the miracles of technology. We must leave them a 
glimpse of the world as it was created, not just as it looked when we 
got through with it.'' By making the NLCS Federal statute, we will 
ensure that future generations will enjoy these national treasures, and 
I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Grijalva's legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, it is vital that we work to 
protect grazing on public and private lands. In fact, communities 
throughout the United States depend on it.
  Millions of acres of lands within the NLCS have grazing. The NLCS is 
a direct threat to grazing for these several reasons. This is not by 
accident. Advocates who testified in support of H.R. 2016 list grazing 
as a ``threat'' to NLCS lands.
  This bill, in fact, directs the Secretary of Interior to manage NLCS 
lands similar to the National Park Service. This is a problem because 
there is no grazing on National Park Service lands. Outside groups will 
use this to drive off ranchers through lawsuits. This is harmful not 
only to ranchers themselves, a very difficult industry at this time, 
but to the communities in which they reside. It is also harmful 
ultimately to the American consumer.
  I urge others to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2016 and encourage a balanced 
policy as a result.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Chairman Grijalva and 
Chairman Rahall, for your very hard work on bringing this bill to the 
House floor today.
  Connecticut's Fifth District, which I have the honor to represent, is 
rich in the kind of landmarks and natural treasures that today's 
legislation would help to better manage. From the beautiful Farmington 
River, a Wild and Scenic River, to the Metacomet Monadnock Mattabesett 
Trail, soon to be a National Scenic Trail, my constituents are 
personally familiar with the kind of benefits and resources these 
designations can provide in encouraging community-driven conservation 
and land management.
  As we continue to grow as a region and as a Nation, we need to be 
mindful of preserving that delicate balance with the natural world 
around us. My home State of Connecticut has the highest proportional 
rate of farm land development in the country, creating a quandary for 
communities who want to promote economic development but don't want to 
sacrifice the unique character of their towns and of their regions in 
the process.

                              {time}  1345

  This is the kind of bipartisan issue that brings many of us together. 
The designations that my district enjoys today come by virtue of the 
hard work of my predecessor, Congresswoman Johnson. This brings 
together hunting enthusiasts as much as it does environmental 
advocates, and they are all asking the question, how do we best 
leverage the resources of the Federal Government to partner with 
communities?
  The Federal Government can and should be that type of partner in 
helping support the regional management of the outdoors. A better 
coordinated Federal effort, which this bill will bring, can empower 
communities and can empower individuals to have a larger, more 
constructive role in the sensible conservation of our land and of our 
resources.
  Again, I thank the chairman for his work on this bill. And I urge my 
colleagues to support it this afternoon.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to a member of 
the committee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2016. One of 
the Resources Committee staffers was just pointing out that 6 years ago 
she paid $1.10 for gasoline. Now we are seeing the price of gasoline at 
$3.30 and increasing. Now what have we done to improve the lives of the 
middle-class citizens who are struggling to pay taxes and to pay the 
cost of fuel for their car, and then face the prospect of losing jobs? 
Well, in 1995, the Republican Congress passed the provision to drill in 
ANWR. President Clinton vetoed that. If that had been passed, today we 
would have 1.5 million barrels of oil in production coming daily from 
there to help stem the price of gasoline. We have limited the ability 
to drill in our outer continental shelf, even though China is drilling 
47 miles off our coast. So again, we are allowing foreign countries to 
develop our resources, yet we are restricting ourselves.
  This past December, this Congress, under the leadership of Nancy 
Pelosi, put 2 trillion barrels of shale oil off limits in Colorado 
saying, I guess, that we're going to go ahead and import, and we're 
going to face the higher price of gasoline. Now, if we think there is 
no connection between the price of gasoline and this bill, take a look 
at the Wilderness Society and their 18-page brochure which tells us 
that it is imperative that we do something with this bill, that we pass 
this bill. It lists as problems that this bill will correct, road 
building, energy exploration, mining, recreational use, offroad vehicle 
use, boundary adjustments. These are all the immediate threats that the 
Wilderness Society points out that the NLCS is going to stop.
  So we find that even the supporters of the legislation realize it is 
going to affect energy development, and yet our friends on the other 
side of the aisle say we are going to accept $3 gasoline, we are going 
to import from Hugo Chavez, and we are going to continue to import from 
the Middle Eastern countries that despise us and work against us. And 
they say they, as a majority, are not going to do anything. And in 
fact, they are going to pass this bill, which makes it more difficult 
for us to produce energy off of Federal lands. It just does not make 
sense in these times when it is a struggle for middle-class taxpayers 
to pay the bills of the family, to feed the family and then get the 
kids to the soccer games, to the classrooms and back, and we are 
passing a bill that has significant effects on the western lands of 
this country.
  In many of my counties, we have 10 percent private lands. In many of 
my counties, the back will be broken of all economic activity as we 
undergo this management change, this way we manage our lands. Our 
western lands are managed well. Maybe the Bureau of Reclamation and the 
Forest Service could do a better job. But they are doing a good job. 
Instead, we are going to say we are going to treat all of the western 
lands like parklands where we have no economic activity at all.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is sadly misguided. And it is not 
without understanding. My office proposed an amendment for wind energy 
on these lands. And they rejected without debate the idea that we would 
not only want to have energy production, but also convert to renewables 
on public lands. They rejected that without debate, without discussion, 
because they know they do not want the footprint of any entity, not 
even oil and gas or renewable energy.
  Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we turn this bill down flat 
because it is going to affect the future of all of our hardworking 
citizens. Just last year, Dow Chemical announced a $22 billion facility 
is going to Saudi Arabia. It is going because the price of natural gas 
is so high here. It took over 10,000 jobs with it when it went. We are 
seeing our jobs leave because of the policies that are being put in 
place by

[[Page 5545]]

this majority. And this bill is just one more addition to those bad 
pieces of legislation of bad policy that is restricting oil and gas and 
restricting renewable development on the lands.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If the gentleman from Arizona would like to 
reclaim his time, I realize he has just had one of his speakers come in 
here, and we can keep the order going, which would be fine with me.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, let me recognize Congressman 
Inslee, a member of the Resources Committee, a sponsor of the 
legislation, for as much time as he may consume.
  Mr. INSLEE. I rise in support of Mr. Grijalva's bill. I really 
applaud his leadership on this. It is long overdue.
  This bill really takes care of the landscape conservation treasures 
that we have come to enjoy. It protects 26 million acres of BLM's most 
exceptional landscapes. And to put it in perspective, that is a lot of 
territory, but it is only 10 percent of the BLM-managed areas. It is a 
very reasonable thing for us to do. And the reason is that it protects 
the heritage, the ancient Native American sites, pioneer ranches and 
pioneer homesteads. I am a fellow of the West. I enjoy looking at them. 
It preserves historic trails, rugged and remote mountains, deserts, 
prairies and rivers. These are the jewels in the crown of the BLM-
managed property, and all Americans have a stake in them.
  When you think about how expansive this is, there is something for 
everybody in America in this bill, those who like to raft, to hunt, to 
sightsee, to fish, to hike, to study, to bird-watch or to just hang 
around with their kids. This is an all-purpose bill. And it is a lot of 
places: Colorado's Canyons of the Ancients National Monument the Lewis 
and Clark National Historic Trail, Idaho's Craters of the Moon National 
Monument, California's Headwaters Forest Preserve, Nevada's Red Rock 
Canyon National Conservation Area, Montana's Upper Missouri River 
Breaks National Monument, Utah's Beaver Dam Mountain Wilderness Area, 
Oregon's Lower Deschutes Wild and Scenic River, and my kind of 
favorite, the Pacific Crest and Continental Divide National Trail 
System, a trail system that is in trouble and this bill can help 
preserve.
  So this really is a universal bill. And I want to point out something 
that is kind of uniquely American. These systems really rely on 
volunteers to keep them healthy. And I want to commend the thousands of 
volunteers who spend their weekends working on these trails providing 
interpretive services. Thank you to all of you who are doing this. This 
bill will help them to have a more organized system, and I think it is 
a real economically sound thing to do.
  The Bush administration has indicated its support for this bill. It's 
straightforward codifying legislation. As a member of the Resources 
Committee, I want to applaud Mr. Grijalva and all of those Americans 
who are going to take their kids out to these places and have a grand 
time. Congratulations on passing this bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. At this time, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  This legislation will turn 26 million acres of land, the same size of 
all of New England, or 16 States, that are now in the Western part of 
the United States into vast tracks that will be walled off from almost 
all human use to the United States except illegals. And here is the 
reason I say that.
  This bill is nothing more than another land grab by the Federal 
Government to restrict land use in America. Under current law, the 
Border Patrol is prohibited from patrolling these areas in the West and 
the Southwest. Remember, we are talking about the size of New England. 
And they are prohibited from doing so because of current law. And this 
measure will make it actually worse. All in the name of protecting the 
environment, we are going to restrict land use by our Border Patrol and 
American citizens.
  Here is part of the problem that is already occurring on current land 
that we are trying to protect the environment from. This is a place 
called ``Amnesty Highway'' in Arizona where illegals come through the 
United States in an area where the Border Patrol cannot patrol with 
their vehicles. They are dumping all kinds of garbage and then moving 
into the vastness of the United States. This bill should be called the 
``Illegal Immigrants Paradise Land Act'' because the area in question 
under this act will be a safe haven for illegal immigrants. In fact, 
just 2 months ago in the Tucson Weekly, it reported rampant illegal 
immigrant activity in Arizona's Ironwood Forest National Monument, that 
is this area right here, an estimated 180,000-acre preserve managed 
already by the Federal Government. People in Arizona call this the 
``Amnesty Trail,'' the ``Amnesty Highway.'' The article reports that 
probably hundreds of illegals a week make it into the Ironwood area 
because of the ``Amnesty Trail.'' Areas that were once pristine 
wilderness now resemble dump yards because of the illegals already 
coming into this area. This bill will make this problem worse. In 
Arizona's Ironwood National Monument, 2 tons of trash left by illegal 
immigrants is removed every week. Trash like this that we see.
  Federal land management officials can't even do their job now, and 
they want to restrict use of this land to Americans. In fact, for 
several weeks last year, Land Management officials did not even enter 
this area because three people were found executed. Supposedly they 
were illegals coming into the United States, maybe drug dealers.
  So why doesn't the government do something about this problem and 
resolve this problem before we restrict the use of land in America to 
Americans? Almost all the lands included under current law have 
prohibitions against Border Patrol and law enforcement officials 
performing regular patrols by vehicles. And as I said, this bill will 
make the problem worse.
  This other photograph is on the same trail, the ``Amnesty Trail.'' It 
is not a very good photograph, but it is taken with a telephoto lens. 
It shows a vehicle bringing in approximately 40 to 50 people in a 
pickup truck coming from south of the border into the United States, 
presumably illegals, traveling the highway that the Border Patrol is 
not even allowed to travel with their vehicles.
  So it is important that we, for several reasons, don't pass this 
legislation. You know, the Border Patrol cannot protect the land, so 
the smugglers and the illegals have a sanctuary area in our national 
landscape. So much for protecting the environment. What we don't hear 
is that the Ironwood National Forest Monument is part of the largest 
human trafficking corridor in the world. Even government officials now 
acknowledge that there is a human trafficking problem in this area. 
They admit that smugglers are bringing people further north every year, 
giving them drugs and then abandoning them on this monument land where 
many of them die of starvation. So naturally, this is where all the 
drug runners and human traffickers go into the Arizona area.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I offer the Member 1 more minute.
  Mr. POE. What our government ought to be doing is opening up these 
lands to our law enforcement, so they can protect our Nation rather 
than putting another layer of Federal bureaucracy on these lands, which 
is what this legislation does. This bill does nothing to protect our 
lands, but makes our lands more susceptible to the land invasion by 
coyotes and drug smugglers.
  There is a border crisis occurring on Federal land, and this bill 
ought to address that issue instead of making this bad situation worse.
  And that's just the way it is.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. May I inquire as to how much time remains.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona has 13 minutes remaining. 
And the gentleman from Utah has 12 minutes remaining.

[[Page 5546]]



                              {time}  1400

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think in the course of the debate on H.R. 2016 we are going to hear 
a lot of claims, a lot of allegations, of how H.R. 2016 will change the 
management of these public lands, how H.R. 2016 will restrict uses in 
the future for these public lands. I want to remind Members of section 
4, Statutory Construction, the savings clause, which in fact codifies 
the existing management and codifies the existing uses. But we are 
going to continue to hear that, the generalizations. And with those 
generalizations come half-truths and untruths as to what this bill does 
and does not do.
  What this bill does not do, it does not encroach on private property 
rights. What this bill does not do, it does not change grazing and oil 
and gas development on these lands. It does not threaten recreational 
and traditional uses of the land, including hunting, rock climbing, 
hiking, camping, rafting and motorized use. It does not make the 
conservation system park-like or eventually managed by the national 
parks. It does not provide additional protections for Wilderness Study 
Areas in the conservation system, and will not designate new 
wilderness. It does not create a new level of bureaucracy. It does not 
take money away from national parks. It does not increase spending on 
government land acquisitions. And it does not impede border security.
  I find it ironic that the now-minority, having been the majority for 
the past 7 years, has not been able to change some of the land 
designations that they are so upset about today. This vehicle, H.R. 
2016, should not be the vehicle for them to vent their frustration. 
H.R. 2016 has gone through a rigorous process and has bipartisan 
support.
  With regard to border security, the failure of this Congress to 
comprehensively grapple with the security issues, the border issues and 
the immigration issues that are facing this country, a broken 
immigration system that all of us can agree to, that failure to enact 
those should not be now made the responsibility of H.R. 2016, for the 
crisis that has been created by the inaction and the fearful reaction 
of many Members of Congress to try to deal with border issues and 
border security.
  H.R. 2016 is a good piece of legislation. Specifically, the savings 
clause protects the intention of those lands, the management of those 
lands and the uses of those lands.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard several things about this particular 
piece of legislation. This new entity, the National Land Conservation 
System, not to be confused with the National League Championship 
Series, which is a much better concept, this entity was not created by 
congressional action. It was created as the dream child of a former 
Secretary of Interior less than 10 years ago.
  When asked in a hearing of the Bureau of Land Management if they were 
incompetent to manage these lands before this new entity was 
established, the simple answer was no. One would then ask the question, 
why was there a need 10 years ago for this new entity, because this new 
entity still does not administer anything, they don't manage anything, 
they don't regulate anything, nor will they, as has been carefully 
delineated by the sponsor of this legislation.
  The first question still should be asked, what do they really do, 
other than to provide some vague philosophy of recognition and 
enhancement and anything else? If we really simply wanted to just 
create this system statutorily, a one-sentence piece of legislation 
would do: ``There is established a National Land Conservation System.''
  Is there a threat to any lands that are currently under the auspices 
of the Bureau of Land Management, as has been indicated by certain 
speakers? The answer is no. The sponsor just admitted there is no 
threat to that. All we are talking about is some vague new entity, and 
the issue of concern with this vague new entity is the language now 
says this new entity has certain values that it is supposed to uphold. 
These values are vague. Nowhere does it specifically say what these 
values are.
  Is this a threat to private property? No more than the present 
system. But that is where the issue comes in. We already have threats 
to the private property within this system, and this piece of 
legislation, rather than solving that issue, exacerbates that issue 
altogether.
  Is there a border security issue? Yes, presently, and this piece of 
legislation does not help that issue. It exacerbates the issue, if 
anything else.
  It is the vagueness of the language in this bill that puts into 
statutory language an entity that really doesn't do anything right now. 
That is a problem for the future, if at some stage or some point in 
time Congress wants or even the entity itself wants to make it do 
something proactively.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mahoney).
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Rahall 
and Chairman Grijalva for their continued commitment to America's 
natural and historic treasures.
  Our national parks, forests and public lands are among our Nation's 
most valuable resources. In fact, one of our country's most unique 
national parks, the Everglades National Park, is located near my 
district. It is important that we continue to protect these 
environmentally sensitive and historically significant areas for future 
generations to enjoy. I believe that the bill before us today, H.R. 
2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act, does just that.
  The National Landscape Conservation System, and, more specifically, 
the Outstanding Natural Area designation which is part of that system, 
was created in 2000 by the Department of Interior in an effort to 
better meet the management needs of our Nation's public lands and 
historic treasures. In addition to the better management practices, the 
system promotes the designation of areas under the system to help spur 
tourism and expand educational opportunities in surrounding 
communities.
  Mr. Chairman, just a few short weeks ago the House passed H.R. 1922, 
the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Areas Act. This bill, 
which I sponsored, would designate this historic lighthouse as an 
Outstanding Natural Area. It is important to note that the lighthouse 
is much more than a historical marker. It has become a symbol of our 
community, woven into the fabric of our culture, even appearing on the 
Town of Jupiter seal. With the passage of this legislation today, we 
have the ability to permanently protect our historic and natural 
treasures, such as the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse, for future 
generations.
  Again, I applaud Chairman Grijalva for his efforts.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, in closing, the gentleman from 
Florida just gave a wonderful speech, and I think he illustrated some 
of the problems with this particular bill. The territory to which he 
was speaking is National Park Service land, not BLM land. This bill 
only deals with BLM land, and that is precisely the problem that we 
have with this particular bill.
  It is very simple one. We have parks and national monuments, some 
administered by the Bureau of Land Management, some administered by the 
National Park Service. They are different. Each one of them has a 
different value.
  In the Park Service, the organic act that created it said what the 
values for this land would be. It is established in statute and in 
regulation. The Bureau of Land Management does not have that same value 
system, because they are different lands for a different purpose, which 
is why the language in this bill is so troubling, because it is simply 
a vague statement that simply says they will have values, and it has 
never, never been defined.

[[Page 5547]]

  When the Department of Interior told me personally that they were in 
favor of this, it was because they could maintain the Bureau of Land 
Management parks and monuments with multiple use as the significant 
value. It would be protected, they said. Which is why I am so 
chagrined, that when we attempted to clarify in this legislation by 
amendment in the committee and once again before the Rules Committee 
that that is specifically the difference between the Park park and the 
BLM park, it was rejected.
  Now, multiple use is the difference between national parks in the 
Park Service system and national parks in the BLM system, and that 
language, that language has to be maintained, because that is indeed 
the only value that makes a difference.
  These lands are not threatened if the BLM has them. They are not 
threatened if we don't make this system, which is redundant at best and 
expensive at best, codified. But we do do something dangerous if we 
pass this legislation and now give a vague term of values on to a 
system that is defined nowhere. It opens us up to litigation problems, 
it causes problems in administration, and it does change the system. 
That is why there is so much danger, unless you are willing to do what 
our side has been saying all along, which is define what those vague 
terms actually mean.
  That, Mr. Chairman, is why we oppose this piece of legislation. It 
opens up a door that has no definition as to what room we actually 
enter, and that is wrong. It is simply wrong.
  The problem with that is it is going to hurt people, people who use 
this BLM land now to recreate, people who use it to graze, people who 
use it for their economy, people who have private property in-holdings 
in this area. They are put at risk because our language is simply too 
vague to allow them to understand what our intent is. That is why this 
bill has to be defeated.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I mentioned earlier the discussion of 
what H.R. 2016 does not do. I think it is worth mentioning what it does 
do. It is very important. And I am only going to concentrate on one 
point. I think we will deal with the values issue in the amendment 
process.
  H.R. 2016 unifies separate units into a coherent system. It ensures 
permanency, and I think that is the most important point. It will 
permanently establish perhaps a last great American conservation system 
in statute, and those lands will continue to be managed by the Bureau 
of Land Management and prevent any future attempts to get rid of the 
system. It enhances the statute of this system, and it deserves to be 
enhanced.
  It is a good piece of legislation. It has good support from Members 
of Congress and from interest groups who care about the conservation 
issues that we face in this Congress.
  Mr. BROWN of Georgia, Mr. Chairman, seizing land infringes on the 
most fundamental of Constitutional rights and endangers property owners 
across our great Nation. NLCS will eternally lock land into Government 
control and prevent Americans from their right to property ownership.
  Our Federal Government already owns 653,229,090 acres of land. Does 
it really need to control any more? NLCS would take control of 26 
million acres of land--13 percent of the nation's surface. This land 
will be forever taken and the right to own land denied. There is no 
justification to consume more land.
  Second Amendment Rights are also under assault in this legislation. 
Nothing in this legislation protects hunting, fishing, or gun rights on 
NLCS land--even though they have traditionally been allowed.
  The Constitutional right to own property should always be protected. 
Citizens should be allowed to utilize and prosper from the land. As 
chairman of the Property Rights Action Caucus, I believe that no 
legislation should ever infringe on property rights or attack the 
Second Amendment. Protect these fundamental Constitutional rights of 
land and gun use by voting ``no'' on H.R. 2016.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2016, the National 
Landscape Conservation System, NLCS, Act. This bill would codify the 
NLCS's management of 26 million acres of land presently under the 
direction of the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, affording the system 
the recognition, management, and unification of a national system.
  The lands in question have been designated National Monuments, 
National Conservation Areas, Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and 
National Scenic and Historic Trails by Congress and by Presidential 
Proclamation. Eight years ago, the Secretary of the Interior 
established the NLCS to manage these areas. Congressional recognition 
of NLCS's management of these treasured places only seeks to codify 
what the BLM currently administers.
  H.R. 2016 does not change the BLM's multiple-use mandate. Rather, it 
celebrates the BLM's ability to manage its special lands for multiple 
uses, including conservation, for the benefit of the American people. 
By writing the NLCS into law, this legislation prevents any rescission 
that might put this new conservation system at risk. It is important 
that the BLM continue to manage and protect these lands and waterways 
enjoyed by millions of Americans each year.
  I am grateful for the steps the BLM has taken in protecting this 
system of Federal lands and urge support of final passage of H.R. 2016.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the 
rights of landowners. H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation 
System Act, would not affect any private property. The bill deals only 
with land that is already owned by the Federal Government. No new lands 
are taken away from any person or added to Federal lands and there is 
no impact on how landowners can use their property.
  Under the guise of protecting landowners, the minority attempted to 
use the vote on ordering the previous question, roll call number 164, 
to kill a good, bipartisan bill. I voted to order the previous question 
because I believe that the House of Representatives should consider and 
approve H.R. 2016.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of this 
legislation and I rise in its support. Its sole purpose and effect is 
to establish the National Landscape Conservation System, NLCS, as a 
matter of statutory law.
  The NLCS now includes more than 800 units, including all National 
Scenic and Historic Trails, National Conservation Areas, National 
Monuments, wilderness areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and wilderness 
study areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM. In all, 
it includes some 26 million acres, or about 10 percent of the land that 
BLM manages.
  As a system it was established in 2000 by an administrative action of 
Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt. However, each of its units was 
originally established by Congress or through a Presidential 
Proclamation under the Antiquities Act of 1906 and each is managed 
according to its enabling authority, as well as other laws applicable 
to various units or portions of units, such as the Wilderness Act, Wild 
and Scenic Rivers Act, or the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
1976.
  The purpose of Secretary Babbitt's administrative action was to erect 
a framework to tie each unit of the NLCS together into a larger 
conservation system, and the result has been to increase the public 
recognition and understanding of these special places within the array 
of public lands under management of the BLM.
  The NLCS units include significant natural resources, including 
approximately 12 percent of the BLM-managed sage grouse habitat, as 
well as important cultural and scientific resources. For example, in 
Colorado the system includes the Canyons of the Ancients National 
Monument, which has more than 6,000 archeological sites significant to 
Native American cultures, as well the Gunnison Gorge and McInnis 
Canyons National Conservation Areas (the latter of which is named for 
our former colleague, Representative Scott McInnis).
  These and the other NLCS units provide unique recreational 
opportunities, and their status as part of the system has proved 
valuable not only in terms of their recognition by the public but also 
as it relates to funding for their management.
  The bill makes that status a matter of law. At the same time, it 
specifies that any future additions to the system must be authorized 
separately--as the existing units have been--and that each unit is to 
be managed in accordance with all laws applicable to that unit and in a 
manner that protects the values for which the components of the system 
were designated.
  The legislation does not impose any new conditions on use of the 
lands involved, nor does it affect existing rights with respect to 
those lands, whether those are related to grazing or other purposes. 
The Congressional Budget Office says its enactment will not affect 
BLM's budget because BLM already has permanent authority to manage the 
lands in the system, subject to amounts provided annually in 
appropriations acts, and that enacting

[[Page 5548]]

H.R. 2016 will not affect direct spending or revenues or the budgets of 
state, local, or tribal governments.
  The bill is supported by the Bush Administration as well as by many 
other groups, including the Colorado-based Outdoor Industry Association 
as well as the American Hiking Society, National Council of Churches, 
Boone and Crockett Club, National Trust for Historic Preservation, and 
the National Wildlife Federation.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a modest measure but one that deserves 
enactment, and I urge its approval by the House.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, today I am pleased to rise in support of the 
National Landscape Conservation System Act. This bipartisan 
legislation, supported by the National Wildlife Federation, 
EarthJustice, The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club and more, would 
officially establish America's newest conservation system. With 26 
million acres of land under its jurisdiction, the National Landscape 
Conservation System, NLCS, protects our nation's crown jewels.
  From the Lewis and Clarke National Historic Trail to Nevada's Red 
Rock Canyon, this legislation works to conserve the fabric of the West. 
In 2000, the Secretary of the Interior established the National 
Landscape Conservation System to protect the best of the lands and 
waters managed by the Bureau of Land Management. This bill provides 
statutory recognition of the existing National Landscape Conservation 
System as well as its permanent establishment as a land conservation 
system equivalent to that of the National Park Service. At no cost to 
the taxpayer, Congress has the opportunity to protect these lands for 
millions of Americans for generations to come.
  Nothing in this legislation changes the way in which NLCS lands are 
currently administered, including hunting and recreation management. 
H.R. 2016 adds no land to NCLS, nor does it contain any provisions 
diminishing private property rights. Following in Theodore Roosevelt's 
footsteps, I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in passing 
this landmark legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the 
Record portions of an article from the Tucson Weekly that was published 
on February 15, 2007.

                      Following the Amnesty Trail

       Leo W. Banks follows one of Arizona's most popular illegal 
     alien crossing routes and finds piles of garbage, trampled 
     public lands, angry residents and the suspected presence of a 
     vicious gang.
       In the coming weeks, as President Bush and the Democrat-
     controlled Congress take up immigration reform, and the 
     political talk turns to amnesty, everyone living along border 
     smuggling routes will hunker down to wait for the worst. They 
     know their lives will get miserable in a hurry.
       The word amnesty possesses remarkable power on the Mexican 
     side of the line. It has the same effect as a starter's 
     pistol.
       Bang! Let the land rush begin.
       It happened after Jan. 7. 2004. when Bush floated his idea 
     for a temporary worker program. The idea was broadly viewed 
     in Mexico as amnesty, and the Border Patrol's own survey 
     proved it. In the weeks following the proposal, the agency 
     quietly questioned crossers apprehended at the southern 
     border and found the president's plan had caused a big spike 
     in illegal crossings. Forty-five percent said they'd entered 
     our country ``to get Bush's amnesty.''
       Nowhere will the coming stampede be more evident than on 
     the smuggling routes that begin at the border at Sasabe, 65 
     miles southwest of Tucson, curl up through the Altar Valley 
     and continue all the way to the Ironwood Forest National 
     Monument, a full 75 miles north of the border.
       The 129,000-acre Ironwood, located west of Marana and south 
     of Eloy, is a desert paradise of giant saguaros and spooky 
     black-rock peaks worthy of a gothic novel. President Bill 
     Clinton declared it a Federal monument in June 2000.
       But the smugglers have turned this signature Arizona 
     landscape into a criminals' playground. The land here is 
     crisscrossed with trails so packed from use, they shine white 
     under the sun. Another Monument resident, Cindy Coping, uses 
     Google Earth to zoom in on the Amnesty Trail, which comes up 
     clear as a bell on her monitor.
       What's it like to live here?
       If you're out on the land a lot, expect to find the corpses 
     of those who've made the terrible decision to cross this 
     desert. Including the three murders last week, seven bodies 
     were found on the Ironwood in the three months prior to this 
     writing.
       One photo, taken sometime in 2000 by my anonymous 
     photographer, shows the skull of a presumed illegal, with 
     other human bones in the foreground. Next to the skull, not 
     pictured, stands a saguaro-rib cross, probably built by 
     companions after the deceased went down.
       For those trying to keep cattle on their land, the 
     smugglers have made living in the Ironwood a nightmare. At 
     this writing, rancher Emilio Figueroa says he has 18 head of 
     cattle, valued at $800 each, on Tohono O'odham land 
     immediately west of the monument. They got out when coyotes 
     cut his fence. Now the tribe is refusing to let him onto 
     Indian land to retrieve them. He's out $14,000.
       For Cindy's husband, Bob, a 58-year-old retired Raytheon 
     engineer, one of the defining aspects of life on the Ironwood 
     is a particular sound he can hear, literally, a mile away. 
     ``I'll be out working and I'll hear, `wappa-wappa-wappa', and 
     I know it's a load-out truck coming down the road with a flat 
     tire,'' he says.
       The smugglers keep driving on the flat until the rubber 
     flies off. Even then, they don't stop. They keep driving on 
     the tire's rim until that, too, falls off or disintegrates. 
     Sometimes the drive train falls out first.
       These smuggler vehicles, most stolen from Phoenix, often 
     travel at night without headlights, with tape over the brake 
     lights, and they've been clocked tearing through the 
     monument's dirt roads at 89 mph. This endangers the lives of 
     residents and visitors alike.
       It also ensures that many of these load vehicles--such as 
     the tan truck pictured--never make it out of the monument. 
     They smash into trees and saguaros, or run into ditches. The 
     BLM has towed 300 vehicles a year out of the monument since 
     2000.
       These load-outs, as well as the constant foot traffic, 
     destroy habitat and threaten cultural sites and endangered 
     species. The trash left behind requires pickup crews to have 
     biohazard training and armed guards watching them as they 
     work.
       Even worse, Vic Brown says that MS-13, the notoriously 
     vicious Salvadoran gang, might be operating on the monument, 
     based on suspicious tattoos law enforcement has seen on 
     smugglers arrested there. The Border Patrol's public 
     information office in Tucson wouldn't return a call to talk 
     about MS-13 in the monument.
       Says Vic Brown: ``We're trying to maintain some semblance 
     of a national monument out there, and to be quite honest, 
     we're not able to do it, because undocumented immigrants have 
     targeted the area. I've watched it degrade from when I got 
     there in 1992, and in the last 5 years, it has gotten 
     progressively worse.''
       The Copings bought their land here in 1995, and since then, 
     they've been eyewitnesses to the explosion of the smuggling 
     trade. In the mid-'90s. it was mainly small family groups 
     that crossed at Sasabe and walked the 75 miles north to the 
     monument, then an additional 18-20 miles to their pickup at 
     Eloy. They rarely used coyotes.
       In 2000, the Copings began seeing vehicles, often Ford F-
     150 pickups, parked at the side of the road. They usually had 
     dark windows, no license plates and the keys resting on a 
     tire. The illegals would drive themselves out to I-10, then 
     Phoenix.
       The abandoned-truck phase gave way in about 2003 to the 
     huge load-out phase. The Copings began seeing SUVs with five 
     to eight illegals sitting on the roof, as Bob says, ``like 
     wasted college students,'' or on the hood, forming a narrow 
     tunnel through which the driver can see.
       Some of these illegals have told the Copings they already 
     had jobs lined up in places such as North Carolina, and 
     curried plane tickets out of Sky Harbor in Phoenix.
       Cell phones revolutionized the smuggling racket, allowing 
     illegals to call ahead to arrange a pickup in the Ironwood, 
     often eliminating the longer walk to Eloy. Independent 
     walkers are gone now. ``Everybody we see now is somebody's 
     customer,'' says Bob.
       The business has become sophisticated, commercial and very 
     dangerous. Cindy, 50, a former engineer at Hughes, used to 
     check fences alone on horseback, but she quit, afraid of what 
     she might encounter. ``Sometimes I'll be at the house alone, 
     and 20 illegals will walk down the road,'' she says. ``It's 
     intimidating. They sound like an army marching.''
       Bob says the number of load-outs in the Ironwood increased 
     last spring before and after demonstrators took to the 
     streets in Tucson and elsewhere to demand a rewrite of 
     American law to accommodate illegal aliens and their 
     corporate partners. The atmosphere, including talk of 
     amnesty, created an explosion in traffic. In April, the 
     Copings counted eight load-outs in one day.
       When the National Guard was sent to the border, the free-
     for-all ended abruptly, if briefly. ``We saw helicopters 
     overhead, military-type aircraft, and we didn't a see a load-
     out for two weeks,'' Bob says. ``The traffic probably dropped 
     90 percent.''
       But the numbers have risen again significantly, and in 
     recent e-mails, the Copings have told me the big load-outs 
     have returned with a vengeance. Cindy's e-mails have the 
     tension and immediacy of dispatches written from a war zone--
     because, in fact, she and Bob live in one.
       Last Thursday, three illegals were murdered in the 
     Ironwood. Cindy and Bob learned of the trouble when a male 
     illegal came to their house, his thigh covered in blood, 
     evidently splatter from someone else's wound. In rapid 
     Spanish, he repeated words like, ``Pow! Pow!'' and ``911'' 
     and ``muerta'' and ``mujer,'' while gesturing of blood 
     pouring from someone's chest. Cindy grabbed her

[[Page 5549]]

     medical kit, and she and Bob and this man jumped into a 
     pickup and raced to the scene.
       Here is what she wrote next:
       ``I called 911 and attended to the woman, who was shot in 
     the shoulder with a bullet wound coming out that soft spot at 
     the bottom of her throat. The 911 dispatcher was 
     simultaneously responding to a similar call from the Asarco 
     Silverbell Mine, which is about a 10-mile drive south. As 
     soon as I could see the woman was in stable condition. I 
     crossed the street and assessed the motionless man on the 
     other side.
       ``I felt no pulse on his still-warm throat. His eyes were 
     closed. I grabbed his wrist, and it cold. Then I saw the back 
     of his head was shot open. He was gone. There was no bleeding 
     at the scene, so I assume this shooting took place earlier, 
     and these four people were unloaded.
       ``The woman, Sebastiana, whom I later found out is 24 years 
     old, began shivering in the morning's chill. I found no signs 
     of continued bleeding. Her wound had been hurriedly dressed 
     with someone's cotton coat stuffed up under her shirt. It was 
     a gaping 2-inch-wide gash between the two bullet holes, but 
     it had stopped bleeding. She was alert and breathing, even 
     able to talk. She had a smaller wound to her abdomen. I 
     elevated her feet, and Bob made two trips back to the house 
     for wool blankets to keep her warm.
       ``A younger (undocumented) woman, Linda, at the scene had 
     blood covering her cheek and circling one eye. She indicated 
     no pain, so this was perhaps someone else's blood. She 
     indicated that something had grazed her face, possibly a 
     bullet. In the dark, it appeared she'd been punched in the 
     eye, but after it got light. I could see it was just dried 
     blood on her face. The first official to arrive on scene was 
     a Pima County deputy who told us that someone had walked into 
     Asarco with four fingers shot off.''
       The e-mail goes on. It ends with Cindy and Bob retreating 
     to their house and locking the gate, another case of Arizona 
     citizens sealing themselves off from the horrors this 
     invasion has brought to our state.
       But heartrending encounters are not unusual in the 
     Ironwood. In November, a man in his mid-50s showed up at the 
     Copings' corrals and said he'd been drinking his urine for 
     four days. Cindy made him macaroni and cheese and watched him 
     gobble it down. As he ate, he broke down in retching sobs.
       The man said he owned a small farm with 70 pigs in Colima, 
     Mexico, and had seven sons living in Phoenix. Breaking her 
     rule of not allowing strays to use the phone, Cindy allowed 
     him to call them to pick him up. He waited and waited, but no 
     one in his family came for him.
       That night, he slept in the bed of one of the pickups. In 
     the morning, he gave Cindy several necklaces--depicting 
     Jesus, the Virgin of Guadalupe and other images--then left, 
     and Cindy isn't sure in which direction he went. She never 
     called the Border Patrol to pick him up.
       ``They usually don't come if it's one or two strays,'' she 
     says. ``But mostly I didn't have the heart. I couldn't do it 
     after all he'd been through.''
       Cindy figures she and Bob have made six such ``rescues'' 
     over the years, She has no choice. ``If I don't help them, 
     they'll die,'' she says. ``We're 75 miles from the border, No 
     one gets here without walking, at least three days, and it's 
     another 20-mile walk out.''
       But living in the Ironwood presents other tough choices.
       In 1997, as a precaution, Cindy got shots to immunize her 
     from contact with hepatitis A. At the time, she was working 
     with Pima County Search and Rescue, and that agency 
     recommended that its personnel get immunized for the more 
     worrisome, and potentially fatal, hepatitis B. It is spread 
     through contact with the blood of an infected person, and 
     Cindy has had contact with bleeding Third World people.
       She hasn't gotten the second shot yet. ``If I were taking 
     the best care of myself. I'd get the B shot, too,'' says 
     Cindy. ``I probably still will.''
       It's easy to understand her anxiety, and her belief that 
     she is on her own against this invasion--because, in spite of 
     what she calls the dedicated Border Patrol agents on the 
     ground, Cindy knows that the American government has neither 
     the will nor desire to control this border.
       The same year she got the shots, a Border Patrol agent told 
     Cindy that while traveling in Guatemala, he walked by a 
     travel agency in Guatemala City and saw in its front window a 
     map showing the 1,800-mile route to the United States--with 
     her little house in the Ironwood as a landmark.
       But Cindy just shrugged at that disturbing news. After so 
     many years of living on the Amnesty Trail, she's no longer 
     capable of surprise.

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Serrano). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

                               H.R. 2016

       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 ``National Landscape 
     Conservation System Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (2) System.--The term ``system'' means the National 
     Landscape Conservation System established by section 3(a).

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION 
                   SYSTEM.

       (a) Establishment.--In order to conserve, protect, and 
     restore nationally significant landscapes that have 
     outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values for 
     the benefit of current and future generations, there is 
     established in the Bureau of Land Management the National 
     Landscape Conservation System.
       (b) Components.--The system shall include each of the 
     following areas administered by the Bureau of Land 
     Management:
       (1) Each area that is designated as--
       (A) a national monument;
       (B) a national conservation area;
       (C) a wilderness study area;
       (D) a National Scenic Trail or National Historic Trail 
     designated as a component of the National Trails System;
       (E) a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
     System; or
       (F) a component of the National Wilderness Preservation 
     System.
       (2) Any area designated by Congress to be administered for 
     conservation purposes, including--
       (A) the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and 
     Protection Area, as designated under section 101(a) of the 
     Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 
     2000 (16 U.S.C. 460nnn-11(a));
       (B) the Headwaters Forest Reserve;
       (C) the Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area; and
       (D) any additional area designated by Congress for 
     inclusion in the system.
       (c) Management.--The Secretary shall manage the system--
       (1) in accordance with each applicable law (including 
     regulations) relating to each component of the system 
     included under subsection (b); and
       (2) in a manner that protects the values for which the 
     components of the system were designated.

     SEC. 4. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to enhance, 
     diminish, or modify any law or proclamation (or regulations 
     related to such law or proclamation) under which the 
     components of the system identified in section 3(b) were 
     established, or are managed, including, but not limited to, 
     the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (43 U.S.C. 
     1601 et seq.), the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), 
     the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), the 
     National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1241 et seq.), and the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1701 et seq.).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in 
order except those printed in House Report 110-573. Each amendment may 
be offered only in the order printed in the report; by a Member 
designated in the report; shall be considered read; shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent of the amendment; shall not be subject to 
amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 110-573.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in 
order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Grijalva:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 5. BORDER SECURITY.

       Nothing in this Act shall impede any efforts by the 
     Department of Homeland Security to secure the borders of the 
     United States.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1084, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment states in its entirety 
that nothing in this act shall impede any effort by the Department of 
Homeland

[[Page 5550]]

Security to secure the borders and enforce the immigration laws of the 
United States.
  Let me be clear, the recent decision by DHS Secretary Chertoff to 
waive more than 30 bedrock environmental laws, including the Safe 
Drinking Water Act and the National Park Service Organic Act, in order 
to build a wall along our southern border was, in my opinion, an abuse 
of discretion granted to him by the previous Congress.
  I have introduced separate stand-alone legislation, H.R. 2593, the 
Borderlands Conservation and Security Act to, among other things, 
repeal this waiver authority because, in my view, there are better ways 
to secure our borders than requiring them to waive laws which protect 
the water we drink and the air we breathe.
  I have also joined with Members of Congress in filing a notice of our 
intent to file briefs before the United States Supreme Court because I 
believe the waiver provisions violate our Constitution.
  However, the bill currently before the House, H.R. 2016, is not an 
appropriate vehicle for addressing these concerns. This is simply an 
authorization bill for a conservation system. It is not intended to 
impact the management on any of these units, including management 
decisions regarding border security.
  The amendment I am offering here simply makes this as clear as 
possible. I oppose the law, and I am using every opportunity to make 
that opposition plain, but this is not the bill for those 
opportunities.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, make sure the debate on 
border security takes place in the appropriate time in an appropriate 
manner under the appropriate legislation, and then we can move forward 
on this straightforward conservation bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I first ask uanimous consent to include an 
article from the Tucson Weekly that deals with the areas of this issue.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's request will be covered by 
General Leave.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Grijalva actually 
taking the lead on this issue.
  In fact, Republicans had two amendments that were introduced to the 
Rules Committee that dealt with this same specific issue. Again, in a 
spirit of bipartisanship, the two Republicans ones were not put in 
place but the Democrat one was, and at least we are addressing this 
particular issue.
  I do happen to have some objection to this one, because to me, what 
this amendment does, is put into statute or to put into language the 
status quo. Nothing in this act shall impede what we are already doing. 
I think this issue should be more forward thinking. We need to change 
what is happening in the status quo in this area that is simply now 
known as the trail of amnesty, where so much illegal narcotics work, 
illegal human trafficking and illegal gang activity has taken place. 
The article to which I referred actually specifies what that is there.
  That is why the amendments that were not made in order were superior 
to the one that is made in order here, and it should be recognized.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield to the gentleman 
from New Mexico 2 minutes of my time for discussion of this amendment.
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I would point out that in committee we heard 
these same comments that we are talking in generalizations, half-
truths, complete untruths. We were told then that the border is 
completely secured in the current legislation, and now we find that 
maybe there is a reason to kind of adapt the wording.
  We also were told that there is nothing that would limit any sports, 
no hunting, shooting sports, that those assertions on the part of the 
minority were simply generalizations, half-truths and untruths.
  So it's really amazing to me that those half-truths now are being 
incorporated into the bill by first the bill sponsor and then by 
another one of the majority Members.
  The complete idea and argument that all of our discussions have been 
generalizations, half-truths and untruths, simply now rises to a level 
which we have to ask ourselves on which side do the generalizations 
lie, on which side do the untruths lie and on which side do the half 
truths lie, because we are finding the majority that is adopting and 
adapting the bill now in order to make it more secure if they did not 
blink, if they had not believed the arguments in committee, they would 
not be making these changes today, they would not be trying to work out 
deals behind the scenes to make this a little bit more, maybe, less 
risky.
  I think if we all see what's going on, I think if we see the majority 
blinking in a big way here on the floor, it just tells us we should 
turn down the underlying language and turn down this offensive impact 
on our public land management.
  I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Do I have remaining time still, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 2 minutes left.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, let me make this clear. I have no 
intention of opposing or voting against the language from the gentleman 
from Arizona.
  I am appreciative that the gentleman from Arizona and the majority 
party has finally taken the initiative of bringing issues up here.
  My objection is that the language that was proposed to the Rules 
Committee in other amendments dealing with this issue was far broader 
and would have been better in the future. When we talk about language 
right now that nothing of us actually impede, we were talking in other 
pieces of legislation about not hindering border security, not 
hindering illegal immigration for Homeland Security or other law 
enforcement agencies.
  The amendments we tried to propose would have been far broader, far 
more inclusive and would have dealt with issues into future as opposed 
to this.
  But having said that, this is at least a good step in the right 
direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is straightforward, the 
amendment restates the obvious, and the question about taking 
initiative is an appropriate question. The initiative should be taken 
with a committee that has been formed to deal with the issues that are 
of great concern to some of my colleagues that have spoken.
  That committee is the Homeland Security Committee, to take 
legislation there that would deal with the issues they were concerned 
about. This is not the vehicle for that legislation.
  My amendment states the obvious, reiterates the obvious.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cannon

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 110-573.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the 
rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Cannon:
       Page 4, at the end of line 23, insert the following: ``In 
     addition, nothing in this Act creates a Federal cause of 
     action based on inclusion within the National Landscape 
     Conservation System.''.


[[Page 5551]]


  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1084, the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that is 
necessary to refine the vague language contained within this bill.
  The legislation requires the lands included in the National Landscape 
Conservation System be managed for values, without ever defining what 
the term values means.
  As we all know, values have different meaning to different people. In 
the case of land management agencies, values can range from cultural 
and historic resources to things as nebulous as ``smell-scapes.''
  The loose definition of the underlying bill leaves the Federal 
Government open to litigation based on what someone may or may not 
determine to be consistent with what they believe are the values of 
lands included within the National Landscape Conservation System.
  Our Federal land management agencies are currently overwhelmed with 
litigation which distracts from their primary mission of land 
management.
  This amendment will prevent unnecessary and onerous litigation.
  While the underlying legislation has a savings clause, it does not 
prevent the bringing of a lawsuit. We have been assured time and again 
that activities on these lands currently allowed will continue without 
a problem. However, the language does not include important and defined 
terms such as multiple use.
  To illustrate the problem, in the event that multiple use activities 
such as grazing are currently accruing on lands within the NLCS system 
and an individual or group decides that grazing activities are not 
consistent with the values of NLCS lands, they can sue to stop the 
grazing activities. Consequently, a permitted activity is left open 
under this new regime to lawsuits based on the loose definition of 
values.
  Most of the parameters by which management is to occur are clearly 
defined. Passage of the underlying bill would create standards which 
are not practical to administer. This will allow external groups of all 
kinds to challenge the BLM's management of NCLS lands based upon what 
the perceived values of these lands are.
  My amendment merely will prohibit lawsuits against the Bureau of Land 
Management based on how they manage the lands under the NLCS system.
  Given the huge cost that we are now suffering with litigation, 
preventing unnecessary litigation should be a goal of this body.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support getting dollars to the ground 
for management, rather than tying them up in legal proceedings.
  I urge support for this amendment and reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Not necessarily.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Arizona is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, as with most of these amendments, the 
Cannon amendment is clearly unnecessary. Once again, we have, in this 
bill, an ironclad savings clause which I demonstrated earlier. That 
would be, after the enactment of H.R. 2016. Nothing in this act would 
diminish or enhance that.
  The ability to sue plaintiffs that they have under current law, that 
would not be changed by H.R. 2016, and nothing in this act would change 
that. Nothing we do here creates a Federal cause of action. Since the 
creation of the system in 2000, nothing ever has. The proponents of 
this amendment are looking for a problem where a problem doesn't exist.
  However, if the proponents of this amendment will feel more 
comfortable that we include language that simply states the obvious, 
then we will not oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANNON. I appreciate the gentleman accepting this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, without further ado, I yield back.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 110-573.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order 
under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah:
       Page 2, strike line 15 and all that follows through page 3, 
     line 2, and insert the following:
       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Bureau of 
     Land Management the National Landscape Conservation System.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1084, the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, again, as I was speaking earlier 
about the bill, one of the problems is simply the concept of some vague 
elements of what ``values'' may or may not be, especially as it applies 
to Park Service and Bureau of Land Management lands.
  The language in question that I ask to be removed from this bill is 
language that comes specifically from the Organic Act that created the 
National Park System as well as the Redwood amendments. Those two 
concepts caused the National Park Service to administer park lands to 
the same standard.
  In the absence of any other definition of what Bureau of Land 
Management land should be in this system, it is essential that we not 
have to revert back to what the National Park Service uses as its 
values standard, and that's the fear that comes in here.
  Indeed, in the BLM land that has been put into this system, you have 
a multitude of different land, from Bureau of Land Management monuments 
to Bureau of Land Management parks, to wilderness areas, to wilderness 
study areas. If, indeed, the same language that has forced the Park 
Service to manage in the same administrative pattern is now imposed on 
the Bureau of Land Management, it would do irreparable harm to 
different lands that are specifically there so that they can use 
multiple use.
  Once again, we come back to that issue. BLM lands are supposed to be 
administered differently. That's why it's BLM lands in the first place. 
This language opens up the possibility of using the same kind of 
litigation techniques that force the Park Service to use all of their 
lands in the exact same manner onto the National Park Service.
  If you change it to simply do what we said earlier, establish a 
National Landscape Conservation System, without the other verbiage, you 
eliminate that potential problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman 
from Utah's amendment because it would undermine not only this 
legislation, but the mission and the mandate of the Bureau of Land 
Management.
  The language this amendment would strike reads as follows: ``In order 
to conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes 
that have outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values for 
the benefit of current and future generations.''
  These words are not new, nor are they undefined. The NLCS already 
exists and has existed for nearly a decade and the Bush administration 
supports

[[Page 5552]]

these words as a summary of the management goals already in place for 
these lands under existing law.
  Versions of this language are found in the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act, in the Wilderness Act, in the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Act, in Presidential proclamations and specific statutes creating these 
conservation units.
  Restating these goals in this authorizing legislation is an 
appropriate mission statement and preserves the status quo. In 
contrast, striking them would send a terrible message. Cutting these 
words out of the bill implies that these are not worthy management 
goals.
  In effect, this amendment suggests that the BLM should no longer 
``conserve, protect or restore'' places like the Canyons of the 
Ancients or the Vermillion Cliffs.
  Cutting these words out of the bill suggests that the Grand Canyon 
Parashant and the Sonoran Desert are no longer ``nationally 
significant'' and no longer include ``outstanding values.''
  Cutting these words out of the bill suggests that ``providing 
benefits for future generations'' is no longer a worthy goal of the BLM 
to pursue at Colorado Canyons or Santa Rosa and San Jacinto.
  The language this amendment would strike is not a secret attempt to 
create a new management standard. Rather, it is simply a restatement of 
the way these lands are already being managed according to mandates 
already approved by Congress.
  The gentleman may not like it. He may even be surprised to learn it, 
but these words are accurate reinstatements of BLM's existing 
conservation mandate. Striking them is an attempt to strike at the 
heart of that mandate, and it must be defeated.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the language that is put in here is 
part of the BLM mandate. They are to conserve, protect, restore 
cultural, ecological and scientific values for the benefit of current 
and future generations.
  The issue at hand, though, is that this is not the only part of the 
BLM's management authority and management purpose. By refusing to 
expand this to the other areas to which BLM is supposed to do, the work 
they are supposed to do on this land, we are in danger of actually 
going the other way and trying to impose that this is the only way, 
especially when this language has been used in the Park Service to 
mandate specific management practices and hurt that process.
  If you go on with this particular section, when you go to (b), it 
lists the kind of areas designated in this new land system. Each one 
was established with a certain land management plan. They are there. 
But the fact that we don't put them in here opens up the possibility of 
litigation to problems that are there.
  It is important so we know that the Department of the Interior said 
they don't mind creating this system by statute, but they were opposed 
to this language. They said this language is harmful to their mission 
statement.
  I wish to actually try and convince every Member on the floor, all 
three of us here, that this is indeed not what the department needs. It 
is not what the bureau needs. It is not the kind of language that you 
want to put in statute if you want to make sure what we are doing is 
specifically defined. This opens up more problems than we would 
otherwise have.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be 
postponed.


             Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 110-573.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment made in 
order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah:
       Page 4, strike lines 5 through 11, and insert the 
     following:

       (c) Management.--The Secretary shall manage the system in 
     accordance with each applicable law (including regulations) 
     relating to each component of the system included under 
     subsection (b).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1084, the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I can be painfully brief on this 
amendment.
  In two places in this bill you have the same problem we have been 
talking over and over about, about the vague notion of simply 
``values.''
  The last amendment took the very superfluous language in the 
preamble, which has the potential of creating problems, as it has in 
other sections. But also in section 3(c)(2), we once again find this 
vague, nefarious language.
  It says that the Secretary shall manage the system in a manner that 
protects the values for which the components of this system were 
designated.
  Once again, by simply saying ``values'' without any kind of 
definition, nor is there any regulatory definition, you have simply 
opened this up to a vague, contentious opportunity. If you are going to 
establish this system and give them something to do, for heaven's sake, 
tell them what they are going to do and make it simple and make it 
succinct.
  That is why this section should be eliminated. Until we are ready to 
define these values, you don't put this in statute.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment for the same 
reasons I opposed the previous amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Utah.
  Like the previous attempt to strike the purposes of this bill, this 
amendment would strike language instructing the BLM to continue 
managing these BLM conservation units in a ``manner that protects the 
values for which the components of the system were designated.''
  Mr. Bishop argues he simply does not understand what this term means, 
and he worries that the BLM doesn't know what it means either. Let me 
assure Members that this is not a new standard and that the BLM clearly 
understands what it means to manage land and to protect its values. In 
fact, they have been doing so for years.
  I have here at least 10 instances in the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976 in which the term ``values'' is used. Not only 
does it appear in the declaration of policy section of that law, it 
actually appears in the definition of the term ``multiple use.''
  If that is not clear enough, most, if not all, of the laws or 
proclamations creating the individual units of the NLCS refer to the 
``values'' to be protected.
  I have three examples. There are many more, but we have selected 
three because they were approved by majority-Republican Congresses. The 
Black Canyon of Gunnison and Santa Rosa National Monuments and the Las 
Cienegas National Conservation Area, all units of the NLCS, all mention 
``values'' in their enabling legislation.
  The section this amendment would strike is an accurate reflection of 
the current management standards applied

[[Page 5553]]

to these lands. To strike it would be to downgrade these conservation 
areas.
  For a better understanding of what this standard means, I would 
encourage all of my colleagues to read the law, rather than simply 
trying to disregard language with which they are not familiar. The 
amendment needs to be defeated.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Arizona's comments. His initial sentence was that I am attempting to 
strike the very purpose of this act. I don't really think that is 
accurate because there is no purpose. If there was a purpose, it would 
have been written down as to what the purpose is. This simply says 
there will be values; and there is no definition of what those values 
are.
  I would remind all of my colleagues in this room, this is the 
language that the department said they do not want. This is the 
language BLM says does harm to them. This is the language they said was 
too vague and should be fixed, and it has not been fixed. That is why 
it should be eliminated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, let me read from the Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act of 1976: ``the public lands to be managed in a 
manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, 
ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and 
archeological values.'' I repeat, this is not new language. This is 
language which has been part of the management of these units from its 
inception.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be 
postponed.


             Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 110-573.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment made in 
order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah:
       Page 4, at the end of line 23, insert the following: 
     ``Moreover, nothing in this Act is intended to additionally 
     restrict or hinder energy development within the system.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1084, the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with one of 
the other issues that we are talking about as far as potential 
development of energy on these lands that are currently under the 
control of the Bureau of Land Management and may or may not actually 
change with the formalizing of this new entity.
  With skyrocketing energy prices, the last thing that Congress should 
do is lock up more lands that could provide a solution.
  The NLCS lands include potentially billions of barrels of oil, vast 
quantities of natural gas and coal, and unlimited potential for 
renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.
  The energy development on NLCS lands is vital to the economies of 
western States, and to the Nation. We should be looking at ways to keep 
the $400 billion that we spend to buy energy overseas here at home. We 
are only just beginning to understand what potential there is on NLCS 
lands for renewable energy sources. This amendment would ensure that 
those options remain open.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. GRIJALVA. At this point, not necessarily.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Arizona is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. As we have mentioned, H.R. 2016 already contains an 
extensive savings clause which makes absolutely clear that the simple 
act of writing the NLCS into statute will not change the way individual 
units are managed.
  The inclusion of this savings clause should relieve Members of the 
need to come to the floor today and further amend the bill to enumerate 
each and every possible use of public lands for specific mention in the 
legislation.
  The underlying bill already makes plain the fact that energy 
development, along with other authorized uses of these lands, will 
continue in those areas where they are currently allowed, even after 
H.R. 2016 is enacted.
  Apparently, this broad savings clause is not plain enough. This 
amendment would single out energy production for special mention as one 
of those uses not impacted by the bill.
  From the standpoint of writing clean, clear legislation that avoids 
redundancy and needless repetition, I oppose the amendment.
  However, if this language provides an extra level of assurance and 
comfort for some Members, this amendment does not really change the 
bill, and I am prepared to accept it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I am assured and comforted.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Altmire

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 110-573.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in 
order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Altmire:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the 
     authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several 
     States to manage, control, or regulate fish and resident 
     wildlife under State law or regulations, including the 
     regulation of hunting, fishing, trapping, and recreational 
     shooting on public land managed by the Bureau of Land 
     Management. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as 
     limiting access for hunting, fishing, trapping, or 
     recreational shooting.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1084, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today to offer an amendment to the National Landscape 
Conservation System Act. Created in 2000, this act provides protective 
and restorative services to nearly 27 million acres of public lands, 
including a number of our Nation's most spectacular wilderness and 
scenic rivers.

                              {time}  1445

  The legislation before us today would codify this existing land 
preservation system, thus ensuring its existence for generations to 
come. However, as written, this bill does not protect the rights of our 
Nation's sportsmen, specifically, their continued right to hunt and 
fish on these lands.
  Because I strongly support this right and want to make it absolutely 
clear

[[Page 5554]]

that it is never infringed upon, my amendments states that enactment of 
this legislation will not, in any way, limit access for hunting, 
fishing, trapping or recreational shooting on the National Landscape 
Conservation System.
  Furthermore, my amendment confirms that the right to manage, control 
and regulate hunting, fishing and trapping on these lands rests with 
the States, not with the Federal Government.
  My amendment has garnered the enthusiastic support of a number of 
sportsmen's groups, including the National Rifle Association and Trout 
Unlimited. It is critically important that we ensure hunting and 
fishing activities remain a part of our Nation's heritage, so I ask my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I wish to claim the time in opposition although, 
as some others have said here, I may not necessarily be in opposition 
to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, to be honest, I will be voting in 
favor of this particular amendment. I think this is actually a very 
good amendment. This is the issue we presented in committee that was 
rejected in committee. I am glad that someone somewhere, between the 
path of this bill from committee to here on the floor, found religion 
and is actually looking forward to this particular issue. It's a good 
one, even though we were told in committee it was just a shadow that we 
were fighting on the wall.
  I would recognize also that there were three amendments that were 
introduced that did the exact same thing that have now been 
incorporated in this particular amendment. Somebody once told me, well, 
when you steal you should steal from the best. I think this is stolen 
from the best simply because the ones that were not recommended were my 
amendments.
  Therefore, since we're saying the same thing, in the spirit of 
bipartisanship, what else can I say, other than this is the right thing 
to do, and I actually personally support this particular amendment. It 
is the right thing to do. Regardless of who gets credit for it, it is 
the right thing to do.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman for his comments and welcome his 
support.
  I do have a few other speakers who wish to weigh in. I would like to 
now recognize my good friend and colleague from the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney) for 2 minutes.
  Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank Mr. Altmire for his 
leadership on this position.
  Hunting and angling are beloved traditions. They are activities I 
enjoyed with my grandfather and my father, and I enjoy them with my 
children.
  Hunting and angling are not just sports, however. They're also a way 
of life where fathers and mothers can spend quality time with their 
children and pass on some knowledge of what they learned as children 
themselves.
  There are over 34 million hunters and anglers in the United States, 
and they spend more than $76 billion a year in hunting and fishing.
  It is safe to say that hunters and anglers are an economic 
powerhouse, driving the economy from big businesses to rural towns, 
through booms and recessions. They are directly supportive of 1.6 
million jobs, which is twice as many jobs as the combined civilian 
payrolls of our Air Force, our Army, our Navy and our Marine Corps.
  Because of hunters, 28,000 jobs are supported in Pennsylvania alone. 
Over $425 million of tax revenues is generated that can preserve land 
and wildlife.
  Now, our bill, this amendment does several things. It codifies the 
National Landscape Conservation System, the NLCS, under the control of 
the BLM. But it will ensure that nothing in the bill will limit, in any 
way, access to hunting, fishing, trapping or recreational shooting on 
the 27 million acres administered by the BLM, the Bureau of Land 
Management.
  It also ensures that the bill will not infringe on a State's right to 
manage, control or regulate its hunting, fishing, trapping and 
recreational shooting activities. That is why I urge all my colleagues 
to support this important amendment.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the coauthor of 
this important amendment. And at this time I would recognize another 
freshman colleague from the great State of Ohio, my good friend, Mr. 
Space, for 1 minute.
  Mr. SPACE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Altmire-
Carney amendment before us. This amendment is necessary to ensure that 
the underlying bill protects the rights of sportsmen across the Nation. 
The amendment does this by making clear that in no way will the measure 
affect the ability of the States to regulate fish and wildlife under 
State laws. It also makes clear that nothing in the bill will limit 
access for hunting, fishing, trapping or recreational shooting.
  As a gun owner, a member of the NRA, and as a member of the 
Sportsmen's Caucus, this amendment is incredibly important to our 
second amendment rights. And as my colleague from the great State of 
Pennsylvania indicated just a few moments ago, Mr. Carney, that is 
important to our way of life.
  I'm proud to advocate for this amendment on behalf of my fellow 
sportsmen and women in Ohio's 18th District, and I strongly urge 
passage of this amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment by my colleagues, Mr. Altmire and Mr. Carney, which will 
offer some needed comfort to those of us in the sportsmen's community 
who seek to protect what access remains to cherished hunting and 
fishing opportunities on public lands. With the adoption of this 
amendment, I would urge all of my colleagues on the Congressional 
Sportsmen's Caucus to vote for the underlying bill as well.
  Without a doubt, the 26 million acres that constitute the National 
Landscape Conservation system's more than 850 individual units 
represent some of the very best hunting and fishing opportunities 
available today. These lands harbor bighorn sheep, elk, pronghorn, mule 
and white-tailed deer, caribou, salmon, chinook, sockeye, steelhead, 
redband trout, and so many more game and non-game species, not to 
mention spectacular landscapes unparalelled in the rest of the bureau 
of land management. These are the very best places the BLM has to 
offer, and they are very deserving of the additional recognition and 
institutional support H.R. 2016 will provide.
  Opponents of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System 
Act, have claimed that it will create a new Federal bureaucracy that 
will usurp private land rights, divert Federal dollars, and dilute 
public access. None of these claims is true. By simply codifying in law 
a designation that has existed through administrative action for the 
last eight years, H.R. 2016 will change nothing in how the BLM or 
Department of the Interior manages these lands. What it will do is 
raise the profile of these national treasures both within the 
department and with the public so that they are known by all as the 
gems of the BLM's stewardship mandate rather than mere afterthoughts 
subject to executive fiat.
  While the underlying bill already contains a savings clause stating 
that all existing laws and regulations governing these lands will 
continue to be exercised and enforced as before, the Altmire-Carney 
Amendment very simply adds an explicit reminder that hunting and 
fishing will continue to go hand in hand with conservation. as 
sportsmen and women provide the primary source of funds for state and 
local conservation budgets, It is appropriate that hunting and fishing 
rights be retained in the National Landscape Conservation system.
  As co-chair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus and a member of 
the Natural Resources Committee, I wish to thank my friend and 
subcommittee chair Raul Grijalva for introducing this bill, chairman 
Rahall for his invaluable support, and Representatives Altmire and 
Carney for offering this important amendment. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment and the underlying measure.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 5555]]


  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Pearce

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 110-573.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the 
rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Pearce:
       Page 4, at the end of line 23, insert the following: 
     ``Specifically, inclusion in the National Landscape 
     Conservation System shall not affect current grazing rights 
     or operations.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1084, the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, today I'm offering a simple, 
straightforward amendment. It states, ``Specifically, inclusion in the 
National Landscape Conservation System shall not affect current grazing 
rights or operations.'' That's it.
  This language is very clear. We're working to protect the ranching 
economies of our western States.
  In the West, many of our communities depend on ranching as a 
traditional and an important way of economy. The West was settled by 
ranchers who brought with them little more than a few cattle, the 
clothes on their back and hope for the future. Today, America's 
ranchers still hold the dream of a better future.
  In New Mexico and across the West, our ranchers are real 
conservationists and know how to protect the land they depend on every 
day. Their lands are often the backstop against growth, and they are 
the voice of preserving the rural nature of our lands.
  However, in countries in the West, it's not uncommon that we find 30 
percent, 18 percent, 6 percent or even 2 percent private lands. 
Therefore, our ranchers depend on public lands for their operations. 
These ranchers bring in millions of dollars of economic activity to New 
Mexico and the entire West. In many places, ranching is the single 
largest economic driver in our communities.
  My amendment will ensure that nothing in this act cuts off the 
current operations of ranchers in the West. Without this amendment, it 
is entirely possible that the enactment of this bill will cut off 
millions of dollars in activity and devastate our western counties.
  Supporters of this bill tell us that it will not stop the multiple 
use of our BLM lands. However, my amendment ensures that this 
legislation does not stop ranching.
  Let me leave you with no doubt. This amendment will ensure that we do 
not cut off our ranchers from lands that they have used for years. In 
some cases, the same ranching families have administered these lands 
for more than 100 years.
  Ranching is an important part of our economy, an important part of 
the history of the West, and passing this amendment will ensure that 
ranching has a part of the future in this West.
  It's a simple amendment. It is endorsed by the National Cattlemen's 
Beef Association, by the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, New 
Mexico Wool Growers and the New Mexico Federal Lands Council.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge its passage, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Grazing is obviously allowed in the units of the NLCS 
where it is appropriate, and nothing in this legislation would change 
that. The savings clause makes that fact as clear as it could possibly 
be. The underlying bill makes no changes to existing grazing rights.
  Were this amendment written simply as an extension of the savings 
clause, as many other amendments offered today have been, it would be 
unnecessary, but not harmful to the bill. This amendment goes much, 
much further, however. It is not as simple as a savings clause specific 
to grazing. Rather, this amendment would operate to prohibit the BLM 
from maintaining current standards, dictating the location and the 
management of grazing on these lands.
  This amendment goes beyond simply saying that nothing in this act 
shall impact grazing, to say that the presence of these areas in the 
NLCS cannot affect the operation of grazing. Talk about an invitation 
to litigation.
  Does this mean the BLM would lose the authority to manage grazing on 
800 or so units in the system?
  Does this mean that those NLCS units where grazing is not allowed 
under current law would have to be opened up, whether it was 
appropriate or not?
  The Pearce amendment could operate to force grazing into sensitive 
conservation areas where it is currently prohibited, and for good 
reason. Arguably, this amendment's an attempt to use this simple 
authorization bill to undermine provisions of existing grazing law that 
have been on the books for years.
  If the gentleman from New Mexico wants to make sweeping amendments to 
the grazing law, he should do so directly, not by means of an amendment 
on this bill.
  I urge the defeat of this amendment and reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The amendment offered by Mr. Pearce is critical 
to protecting ranchers who produce our food from the negative 
consequences of this bill. Without the Pearce language, ranchers would 
be left to the whims of future Secretaries of Interior that will 
diminish ranching opportunities.
  Already, grazing rights are under assault on multiple fronts. There 
is a simple element out there that loathes grazing on public land. And 
our food supply is, indeed, worthy of protection and worthy of the use 
of our public land.
  Despite opposition to this amendment in committee, I hope the other 
side will now recognize that granting these small protections in the 
legislation is, indeed, our duty. We cannot abandon our responsibility 
to legislate by leaving to bureaucrats the opportunity to isolate 
bankrupt ranchers dependent upon grazing.
  We thank Mr. Pearce for his foresight and determination to protect 
grazing rights now and in the future, and urge support of his 
amendment.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. We reserve our time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I observe that we are hearing the same 
tired excuse that nothing in this underlying bill affects this. Yet I 
would simply point out to the ranchers of this land that now, under the 
majority, you don't rate as high as the sportsmen. You don't rate as 
high as those people who are concerned about border security, because 
we were told that same tired language that nothing in the bill affected 
them, but the majority's been willing to adapt the language here 
because they know that the underlying bill affects it. But they are not 
going to make one amendment in order that would protect our ranchers 
and protect and make sure that this language doesn't affect them.
  It is really unusual that we're hearing such a diverse opinion from 
the sponsor of this bill right now. It says that nothing affects it. 
And then he reads all sorts of language in, and again for those people 
who are watching and listening, I would simply say again, read the very 
simple language: ``Specifically, inclusion in the National Landscape 
Conservation System shall not affect the current grazing rights or 
operations.''
  And yet we've built all of these potentials that we have created for 
this language that we are, in fact, rewriting the entire way that 
grazing is done. Grazing is always done by cows walking out and 
munching on the grass.

[[Page 5556]]

And it's a very simple operation. I think that maybe our amendment is 
being overcharacterized. I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona and 
his overcharacterization. But the truth is, we're simply trying to 
protect the ranchers in the West who use the public lands, and many 
times there are no private lands to graze off of.
  I would reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, these are not tired excuses. I think my 
attempt has been an exercise in trying to drill the facts of the 
legislation into those that don't want to hear it.

                              {time}  1500

  The underlying bill makes no change to existing law regarding 
grazing. The amendment, in contrast, could be interpreted as expanding 
existing grazing into areas where it is not appropriate. We tried to 
work with the gentleman from New Mexico to draft his amendment more 
clearly, but because this amendment is unacceptably broad, it must be 
defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
will be postponed.


            Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Walden of Oregon

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 110-573.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order 
under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Walden of Oregon:
       Page 3, strike lines 19 through 23.
       Page 3, line 24, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(A)''.
       Page 4, line 1, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(B)''.
       Page 4, line 3, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1084, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, almost 9 years ago, the 
Department of the Interior proposed designating Steens Mountain in 
Harney County, Oregon, as a national monument. This designation would 
have harmed the cooperative management and preservation successes on 
the mountain and would have choked the local ranching way of life while 
allowing little public input into the management process.
  So I met with the people of Harney County out at Frenchglen, and we 
challenged then-Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt to let us attempt 
to write a plan, rather than suffer the consequences of a top-down 
Federal designation. That would have been a way that would not only 
preserve the ecological treasure of Steens Mountain but also the way of 
life out in that part of Oregon.
  To his credit, Secretary Babbitt allowed for our request. He gave us 
a shot at coming up with something better, and the residents of Harney 
County rolled up their sleeves and we all went to work.
  This effort produced an historic bipartisan, legislative success. 
Working with State and Federal officials, representatives from the 
environmental community, my colleagues in the Oregon congressional 
delegation, the governor and others, we crafted a unique piece of 
legislation that not only satisfied the environmental concerns, or 
``lands legacy'' initiative, of the Clinton administration but also 
allowed for a way of life to continue on the mountain that has existed 
for more than 100 years since the first settlers started arriving in 
this rugged part of the West in the 1800s.
  Moreover, the bipartisan legislation established an historic 
agreement between conservation groups and the local ranching community, 
implemented a unique cooperative management system with oversight by a 
citizens' advisory council, and among many other things, designated the 
first grazing-free, cow-free wilderness.
  The bill was crafted with so much local and bipartisan support that 
it was approved by the House on voice vote and unanimously by the 
United States Senate. In the years since, management principles in that 
legislation have proven that they can work; although it has not always 
been easy.
  Unfortunately, many in Harney County who have dedicated much to the 
successful implementation of the Steens Act worry that Washington, 
D.C., again may derail the very specific purposes and objectives laid 
out in that Act. Without consulting the formally recognized stakeholder 
groups in the region, I'm concerned the underlying legislation would 
include the Steens in the National Landscape Conservation System.
  Given my experience in creating the historic Steens Act, I understand 
the delicate balance between providing additional protection for 
deserving areas, while also ensuring the opportunities for other, 
historic uses. That is why I drafted the amendment today to strike the 
reference of the Steens Act from H.R. 2016, the National Landscape 
Conservation System Act.
  The problem is simple. The Steens already has a set of strongly 
supported, congressionally mandated management purposes and objectives 
from the 106th Congress. I'm concerned that the Steens Act, 
specifically noted in this legislation, would give the Steens a 
duplicative set of management principles that would prove to be bait 
for unproductive lawsuits.
  I certainly don't want clauses in H.R. 2016 to be used to upend the 
delicate balance all parties, including conservation and ranching 
groups, achieved with the writing and passage of the Steens Act.
  So, Mr. Chairman, if I might engage in a colloquy, can you assure me 
and the good people in Harney County that your bill, H.R. 2016, if it 
becomes law, will not in any way supersede, undermine, or be used as a 
reason to change any of the purposes established in section 1(b) or the 
objectives established in section 102(b) of the Steens Act, Public Law 
106-399.
  I yield to my colleague from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much.
  I am very well aware of the efforts made by you and the rest of the 
Oregon delegation to create one of the most unique pieces of Federal 
land management legislation in the Steens Act. You sought a balance of 
land protection, multiple historic uses, citizen involvement, and the 
creation of the first grazing-free wilderness in the country.
  I can clearly state to you that H.R. 2016 will not in any way 
supersede, undermine or be used as a reason to change any of the 
purposes established in section 1(b) or the objectives established in 
section 102(b) of the Steens Act, Public Law 106-399.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Chairman Grijalva, I appreciate your commitment 
to the Steens Act and recognition of all that went into its development 
and approval by Congress.
  I thank you for your assurances here today on the floor of the House 
of Representatives to me and to the people of Harney County and this 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Cummings) having assumed the chair, Mr. Serrano, Acting 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. 2016) to 
establish

[[Page 5557]]

the National Landscape Conservation System, and for other purposes, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________