OMNIBUS NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS ACT OF 1998
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in House section
OMNIBUS NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS ACT OF 1998
(House of Representatives - October 07, 1998)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H9741-H9870]
{time} 1230
OMNIBUS NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS ACT OF 1998
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 573 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 573
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of the
rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration
of the bill (
H.R. 4570) to provide for certain boundary
adjustments and conveyances involving public lands, to
establish and improve the management of certain heritage
areas, historic areas, National Parks, wild and scenic
rivers, and national trails, to protect communities by
reducing hazardous fuels levels on public lands, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Resources. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and shall
be considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall be in
order except those specified in section 2 of this resolution.
Each amendment may be offered only in the order specified,
may be offered only by a Member specified or his designee,
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time
specified equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the
House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order
against the first amendment specified in section 2 are
waived. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1)
postpone until a time during further consideration in the
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows
another electronic vote without intervening business,
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the
first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with our without
instructions.
Sec. 2. The amendments described in the first section of
this resolution are as follows:
(1) the amendments by Representative Hansen of Utah printed
in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause
6 of rule XXIII, which shall be debatable for twenty minutes;
and
(2) an amendment by Representative Miller of California if
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII on October 5,
1998, which shall be debatable for one hour.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. McInnis) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, during
the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purposes of debate only.
Madam Speaker, the proposed rule is for a modified closed rule
providing for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources.
The rule provides that no amendment will be in order except, one, the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) printed in
the Congressional Record and numbered 1, which shall be debatable for a
period of 20 minutes; and two, the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Miller) if printed in the Congressional Record on
October 5th, 1998, which shall be debatable for 1 hour.
The rule provides that the two amendments listed above may be offered
only in the order specified, may be offered only by a Member specified,
or his designee, and shall be considered as read, shall be debatable
for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
The rule waives all points of order against the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
In addition, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the
Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce
votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions. This rule was voted out of the Committee on Rules
by a voice vote.
Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation, the Omnibus National Parks
and Public Lands Act of 1998, addresses a wide variety of important
national parks, wild and scenic rivers, heritage areas, national
forests, and many other public lands issues and concerns.
This bill includes new protections for national parks and heritage
and wilderness areas in 36 States throughout this Nation. There are
over 80 proposals from approximately 70 Members of the United States
Congress within this underlying legislation. This is critical
[[Page
H9742]]
legislation. This deals with our national parks. It is a good approach
to our national park needs.
As I stated earlier, Madam Speaker, this provides much protection and
many of the projects that are critical across the country for our
national park system.
Madam Speaker,
H.R. 4570 is a bipartisan effort. As I mentioned
earlier, Madam Speaker, we have a number of different congressional
districts who have projects contained within this bill, both Democrat
and Republican. This is a bipartisan bill. It is an effort to get a
number of very important pieces of legislation passed because,
obviously, we are in the final few days of this session.
Madam Speaker, some groups have expressed concern with a few sections
included in 4570. Consistent with the bipartisan spirit in which this
bill was drafted, compromise language has been worked out for many of
these sections, including major changes to the San Rafael section, the
NEPA parity provision, Chugach, Cumberland Island, hazardous fuels
reduction, the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Canyon Ferry Reservoir,
Paoli Battlefield, Tuskegee Airmen, and the Emigrant Wilderness
provisions. Other controversial sections are also deleted by the
manager's amendment.
The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), chairman of the Subcommittee on
National Parks and Public Lands of the Committee on Resources, has made
significant efforts and he has made significant concessions to the
groups that have expressed concerns with the provisions of this bill.
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this bill includes over 80
proposals from about 70 Members of Congress contained within the
legislation. I am one of those 70 Members with provisions in this bill.
Title 13 of the Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act of 1998
proposes a transfer of the title to the facilities of the Pine River
Irrigation Project from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to the Pine
River Irrigation District.
My piece of this bill is an excellent example of how we, the United
States Congress, can govern in a better way, a way that involves
communities and local and State government, a way that empowers the
people that we represent.
In response to local initiative, and in my opinion demonstrating one
of the best examples of the so-called ``New West'' model of cooperation
to achieve local control of public resources, a proposal to transfer
title to the Pine River Irrigation Project was worked out.
I believe this type of action, shifting Federal control of
appropriate projects to local communities, and doing so only after
significant commitment by interested government agencies and extensive
input from the public impacted by the proposal, will serve as the model
for the future efforts of this nature.
Madam Speaker, this bill contains too many other examples of good
governance and good public lands policies to discuss in detail. I
encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, this is a modified closed rule. It allows for the
consideration of the National Parks and Public Lands Act of 1998. As my
colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) has described,
this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Resources.
The rule permits the manager's amendment. The Committee on Resources
ranking minority member chose not to offer an amendment. No other floor
amendments can be offered. I understand the need for cutting corners at
the end of the session in order to move legislation before adjournment,
but that is not a good enough excuse for the bill before us today. The
bill contains more than 100 provisions affecting specific parks,
monuments, landmarks, trails, and heritage areas.
Some of these provisions were originally introduced as freestanding
bills, and have partially gone through the normal Congressional
process, including hearings and reporting by the Committee on
Resources. However, other provisions have not. In fact, some sections
have only seen the light of day in the subcommittee amendment which was
made available yesterday for the first time. Some of these provisions
are very controversial, and would never have survived if they had been
subject to an open committee process.
There is no committee report for this bill, there have been no
hearings, no Congressional Budget Office cost estimate, no Federal
mandate statement, no constitutional authority statement. What is the
point of having a committee process if we are going to bypass it on a
regular basis?
The bill is strongly opposed by a coalition of conservation and
environmental groups. The administration would veto the bill if enacted
in its present form. Unfortunately, the rule will not permit Members to
offer amendments to improve the bill. Madam Speaker, Members deserve
the opportunity to debate and amend the bill. Unfortunately, this does
not happen at the committee level, and this rule will not permit it on
the House floor.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, first I should mention that in Ohio we establish the
American Discovery Trail, an important aspect of this bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on
Resources, who I think is a good leader on this bill and somebody who
understands the details of this bill.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, this is a good rule that should
be adopted.
First of all, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Hansen). He has done an excellent job. In fact, he has done more
than I would have done in the realm of trying to become reality in the
sense of compromise with all walks, all thoughts, and all
understanding. He has done an excellent job.
This is a pro-environment, pro-park, pro-history preservation bill
that will improve our national parks, wild and scenic rivers, heritage
areas, national forests, and many other public lands. Most of the
sections of this bill have gone through individual hearings and
followed the legislative process on freestanding bills.
Sixty-seven Members of this Congress from both parties have worked on
separate pieces of legislation in this bill. We have worked closely
with the Members on the important projects, Members of the Republican
side and Democrat side. This bill affects 36 different States, the
District of Columbia, and will benefit millions of people.
I will not list all the projects of this bill, the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Hansen) will speak about that in the general debate. Let me
say, though, this bill is a delicate balance, a very delicate balance.
There will be some Members who believe we have spent too much time on
the parks, some who believe we have not spent enough. I think it is a
good investment.
There are those who are going to make the usual accusations we are
not protecting the environment enough, but this bill creates new
opportunities for recreation, for protection of our wildlife, and for
improving the quality of life of Americans. This bill deserves the
support of every Member of this House.
May I say, Madam Speaker, that for those who may think about voting
against this bill or this rule, I would suggest respectfully, because I
have worked with each Member who has come to me, it is going to be very
difficult in the future to listen to someone sincerely when they do not
support their own legislation, or when they suggest that ``I want to
have mine, but no one else gets theirs.''
I suggest that those things that are in Ohio, those things that are
in Pennsylvania and California, Mississippi, all those other States,
those Members had better think very carefully about this great bill.
As far as the administration threatening to veto it, I have never for
the life of me understood why we have to listen to the administration
with regards to administration saying they
[[Page
H9743]]
are going to veto it. We are supposed to be the governing body for the
people. If he wants to veto a parks bill, let the President veto it. I
have no objection to that, if he wishes to do so. That is our form of
government.
But I have listened day after day to this President threatening
vetoes. I am saying, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves if we listen
just to the President. Under our Constitution, we are the House of the
people. It is our decision. If we want to vote this bill down, fine,
but do not vote it down because in fact he threatens a veto. If Members
want a king, they can have a king. I suggest the President would make a
very poor king.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Miller), the former chairman and now the ranking
member of the Committee on Resources.
Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Madam Speaker, this rule is adequate for this purpose. It does
provide for an amendment. Obviously, the problem is that this bill
cannot be amended in such a fashion to make it a better bill. We have
declined to offer an amendment. We think the bill should be defeated.
It should be defeated because it is contrary to the procedures of this
House. It is contrary to sound environmental policy. It has many, many
bad provisions in it.
It also has some very good provisions in it. Unfortunately, those
good provisions are being used as bait. They are being used to try to
enable some bad things to happen in this legislation, and to provide
camouflage for the underlying provisions in this bill that are very bad
policy.
That is why the administration has said it will recommend a veto of
this legislation, should it pass. The reason Members ought to listen to
this recommendation is so we do not go through this charade and then
end up with nothing.
The fact of the matter is there are many, many portions of this bill
sponsored by Members on both sides of the aisle that are
noncontroversial, that have bipartisan support, and that can be dealt
with and passed out of the House almost immediately on unanimous
consent. We can deal with those pieces of legislation.
{time} 1245
There are others that have had no hearings that we know very little
about, or are so controversial that they simply drag the whole package
down.
So Members can make a decision. They can vote ``no'' on this. Then we
can concentrate on passing legislation that will be without
controversy, that will address the needs of many, many Members, or they
can continue the charade that somehow this bill is going to pass, when
many of the Senators who are responsible for the jurisdiction of this
bill have indicated that the Senate will not give consideration to it.
Unfortunately, the Senate has passed some noncontroversial portions
of this bill and sent them off to the President. So the constituency
for this bill is declining, and the controversy is increasing. That
does not sound like a formula for success at the end of the session.
The fact of the matter is we have had all of this year in which many
of the provisions of this bill could have been brought before us and
then we could have dealt with them. But at the end of the session, this
is a veto. It is unacceptable. It is bad policy, and I would urge all
Members to vote against it and understand that not only the
administration, but all major environmental groups oppose this
legislation.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I think we need to lay out very clearly here,
especially in light of the criticism from the gentleman from California
(Mr. Miller) about the process that we are following. The gentleman
from California is quick to step up to the plate and criticize this
bill. But the gentleman from California has not been very quick to step
up to the plate and offer a substitute. Offer something better.
It is very easy to stand on this House floor and criticize the
Republicans and criticize the Democrats who have worked to put this
bill together. But I think that that criticism loses some of its
credibility when one who steps up has the opportunity under the rule,
has the opportunity under the rule to offer a substitute to put in
place of this a better bill, stands up and criticizes us. I think this
criticism would be much better received had they had a substitute on
that side.
I would add that that is not a Democrat or Republican kind of bill.
This is a bipartisan bill. So, we have a few Members on the Democratic
side criticizing this thing. But still, out of fairness, the Republican
leadership out of fairness insisted that these Democrats who are
objecting to this bill have an opportunity, out of fairness, have an
opportunity to offer their own proposal.
They declined to do that. Why? Because they do not want any
criticism. It is much easier to criticize somebody than offer a
substitute or come up with a good alternative. And that is the exact
route they are traveling, and in my opinion that route comes to a dead
end.
Madam Speaker, this is a good bill, a good rule; it is a fair bill,
and a fair rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall)
for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. It is only at the
end of the session that we will probably ever see rules like this in
which there is simply no opportunity for the body to work its will on
what constitutes almost 100 different land use and park measures in one
bill.
Some of these have been passed and are noncontroversial and have
received deliberation of the Committee on Resources and the
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands. But many of these
provisions, of course, have not been considered or debated on the House
floor on their merits. We are forced to swallow whole in this case
almost a hundred different modifications to various land use policy.
Of course, it is easy enough to say that there is an alliance here
between Members that have some provision in this bill, and that they
are basically being force-fed 99 other bills along with the one
provision that they want to see enacted into law. But this is not the
way to do business in terms of park and public land policy.
If these issues had been vetted, if they had been amended, if they
had been debated on their merits, but there is no opportunity here
today to in fact amend or to extract these specific provisions from
this bill and move on in a deliberate way with the measures that are
before us. There is simply no way to do it.
This is sort of a sorry excuse. I think the committee has worked very
hard over the last 2 years in having hearings. I know I've sat through
my share of such hearings. I am a little surprised that at the end of
the session now they bring forth this type of bill, when there is not
consensus on it, when all the major conservation and environmental
groups are against it and numerous proposals of controversy bad policy
and no hearings on the topic.
It is bad policy. It is a bad rule. This is not providing the ability
of the body to work its will. This is simply a slam dunk of 100
different land use decisions that frankly repeal long-standing
wilderness designations, that provide for roads, provide for other
types of activities, and it is being force-fed to the Members as if
they have to accept it in order to gain some reasonable changes in
terms of public lands and parks bills that they want. The veiled threat
and policy is inherent in this approach.
Quite frankly, I think the Congress has rightfully reserved to itself
some of the responsibility to work on parks and public lands bills. But
this type of action, I think, is the type of action that will, in fact,
argue for changing that particular responsibility and conveying this
responsibilty to the administration, because I think it is
irresponsible to act on a measure of this nature, of this magnitude, in
this rule.
Madam Speaker, this is simply a slam-dunk rule that is going to not
provide for deliberation or consideration. It is an attempt to push
through this body measures that cannot survive on their own merit on an
up-or-down vote, and they are shoved into this measure.
[[Page
H9744]]
Someone talks about it being ``park pork.'' It is more that that.
Part of this pork sausage is rancid meat that is into this omnibus park
pork sausage. As Bismarck said, those that like laws and sausages
should never watch either being made. I would hope we would move away
from such an approach. It is not so much sausage, but that we have
rancid meat in here that destroys our parks and wilderness system, that
are an affront to the American people, and that is why I urge a ``no''
vote on this rule and on this bill.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman's are very eloquent comments, but where
is the meat? The gentleman has an opportunity to offer a substitute. If
he thinks this is a rotten bill, he should come up with a better car.
We are not prohibiting. Our rule is very specific. Let me make it
clear that this rule allows the opposition to come up with a substitute
through the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). He is free to do
that.
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield? I would be happy
to respond.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I would be happy to yield in a moment, if
the gentleman would sit around and listen to the debate.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla).
(Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and
of this legislation that is a result of a lot of hard work between both
sides on this committee. The gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and
the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) have done an outstanding job
in moving this legislation forward.
This bill contains, as the chairman alluded to earlier, many stories
out in the heartland that will result in positive changes in
communities affecting National Parks all over the country. It is a good
bipartisan bill, and every Member of Congress that is affected by this
bill has a good story to tell about the changes that would result when
this legislation passes.
I will just highlight briefly what will happen in my congressional
district. There is a piece of land that the owners would like to donate
to the Fort Davis National Historic Site. And there are other bills as
well that have other local significance, and these changes should not
fall prey to partisan politics.
In my part of the country, the bill would permit a simple 16-acre
expansion of the Fort Davis historical site. This legislation is
necessary because the original legislation limited the historic site to
460 acres.
Fort Davis is located in the heart of west Texas, a wonderful part of
the country nestled in an area that is very scenic in its own rough and
rugged way. I am proud to represent this area, and I would like to
invite my colleagues to visit this area any time they are passing
through my State.
That entire area of the State is the most popular tourist attraction
in the State of Texas now. The fort was a key post in the defense of
west Texas and thus played a major role in this region's history. From
1854 to 1891, troops at the post guarded immigrants, freighters, and
stage coaches on the San Antonio-El Paso Road. Fort Davis is the best
remaining example in the Southwest of the typical post-Civil War
frontier fort. The post has extensive surviving structures and ruins.
The particular parcel of land that would be added is known as
Sleeping Lion Mountain. This land overlooks the park's historic
landmarks. It is adjacent to the park's southern boundary, and I
believe that the inclusion of this tract of land into the site would
ensure the visual and historic integrity for this State and national
treasure.
The land is slated to be donated to the National Park Service by the
Conservation Fund. The land has been purchased by the Conservation
Fund. They secured the funds from several private foundations to
purchase this land. The purchase of the land was completed in April,
and they are simply waiting for us to act. In fact, they have been
waiting for a long time for us to act.
Madam Speaker, this park expansion has the blessing of the local
community and is supported by the Texas Historical Commission. This is
a simple piece of legislation that allows for a minor park expansion.
And reflecting on the story that I just told, Madam Speaker, there are
countless others around the country that could be told about a positive
change in their community and their national parks that could result in
something good for the communities that these communities are crying
out for.
Madam Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen)
and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), as well as the
gentleman from New York (Chairman Solomon), my friend who is sitting to
my right, and also the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) who has
worked hard on this rule and on this legislation.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento), out of fairness, for him to respond.
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
McInnis), and I will certainly also get time from the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hall). But this rule does not even provide the opportunity
for 5 minutes debate for each of the measures in the bill. I mean, that
is its sort of stand-on-your-head-type logic, because it says we can
offer a substitute, but this rule waives all points of order against
the substitute offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), but
does not waive them for the substitute if offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Miller). And we did not know what the substitute was
going to be, and we were supposed to have the amendment in by Monday.
It is an unequal playing field and a bad bill and a bad rule.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think the gentleman from Minnesota has brought up a couple of valid
points. I am not sure that the gentleman is aware of the historical
perspective up in the Committee on Rules. Waivers were offered, and on
top of that, we gave the other side an hour, 1 hour, of debate on the
substitute. I am baffled by the fact that there is such strong
criticism coming about this bill, yet no one who criticizes has decided
to step forward with a better car.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I would just point out that I think it is
an impossible process when we have nearly a hundred measures in here
that are important. The measure that the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla) mentioned is important, and I do not have any objections to
it. But this does not provide 5 minutes of debate, not even a minute of
debate for each measure in the bill. I think these measures deserve
attention.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the
gentleman, that is exactly the point. It is a very complicated bill. It
has lots of different projects in it. We are not going to get everybody
in here happy about this all the time. But this is probably, this is
clearly the most critical bill dealing in helping our national parks we
have had this session.
We cannot put together the perfect model because we have too many
players and projects. This is the best we are going to get. And if the
gentleman could have done better, he should have introduced it.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert).
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but in
opposition to the bill. It is a perfectly fine rule for a fatally
flawed bill.
I had hoped not to be standing here today. I had hoped the Committee
on Resources would pull together a noncontroversial bill, one that
would be signable, that actually had a chance to become law. That
result was encouraged before the bill was even introduced and there was
an offer to negotiate.
Indeed, discussions did take place for 4 days last week. But the
Committee on Resources opened those negotiations by listing the items
that they considered nonnegotiable, and they were some of the worst
provisions of
[[Page
H9745]]
the bill. That is not a very promising way to start negotiations.
But we still tried to work out issues concerning forestry, Bureau of
Reclamation projects, and the rules governing wilderness areas.
Unfortunately, none of these issues was fully resolved. We did reach a
compromise on one provision, procedures for a NEPA waiver for certain
forests.
In short, the bill and the manager's amendment do not address my
concerns or the concerns of so many of my colleagues. If my colleagues
have heard otherwise, they have been misled.
So, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, but oppose the bill; a
bill that could have been negotiated, a bill that could have been
noncontroversial, a bill that could have helped Americans all around
the country, but a bill that instead is opposed by every environmental
group.
It is opposed by the Taxpayers for Common Sense, it is opposed by the
administration, it is a bill that is going nowhere, regardless of what
happens here today. The majority of this bill could have been passed on
the suspension calendar if the temptation had been resisted to deal
with controversial matters that have never been the subject of full and
open hearings.
I have no objection to the rule. It is a tribute to my friend and
good chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon). But I urge
defeat of the bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
{time} 1300
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to
both the rule and to
H.R. 4570. I say reluctant because this is likely
the last parks bill to be considered by the House in this Congress, and
I would have liked it to be bipartisan.
Madam Speaker, this bill contains laudable provisions which should be
enacted into law. The bill contains many provisions supported today by
both sides of the aisle, and many more provisions, I believe, that
could have been negotiated into forms both sides could have supported.
Over the past several weeks I have had discussions with several Members
concerning their sections of this bill, and I was prepared to work with
them and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) to craft a bill that
could have passed the House today. Such a bill could stand a good
chance of being enacted into law.
Madam Speaker, among the provisions which I believe there is
bipartisan support for are the expansion of the Fort Davis National
Historic Site in Texas, expansion of the Arches National Park in Utah,
establishment of the Thomas Cole National Historic Site in New York,
the amendments to the boundaries of the Abraham Lincoln Birth Place
National Historic Site in Kentucky, the Automobile National Heritage
Area in Michigan and Indiana, and the land exchanges involving Yosemite
National Park and the Cape Cod National Seashore.
Among the provisions I believe, Madam Speaker, that could have been
negotiated to acceptable resolutions are the Cumberland Island National
Seashore in Georgia and the San Rafael Swell National Conservation Area
in Utah.
With all due respect to my dear friend and colleagues, the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), even
with the changes contained in today's amendment, there are many
provisions which I cannot support in good conscience. Among those are
the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land, the requirements for congressional
approval of national monuments, and changes in environmental laws which
go farther than I believe are beneficial to our public resources.
Madam Speaker, these are honest differences on how best to manage our
public parks, lands and forests. Based on my subcommittee work with the
gentleman from Utah over the past 2 years, I think many of these
differences could have worked out. There are others, however, that,
given the number of them and basic philosophical differences between
the Members, we probably could not have resolved. I believe we should
have saved the provisions for which there is strong support by pulling
others from this bill. Perhaps this is unacceptable from the majority's
perspective, but as we move through these last days of this Congress, I
had hoped that we could have focused on moving to enactment as many
meritorious bills as possible. With more compromise from the parties
involved, we could have done this.
Madam Speaker, as I noted earlier, I would have preferred to be
speaking in support of this legislation, but given the substantive
differences, I feel compelled to recommend to my colleagues to vote
against this rule as well as the bill.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time. I was not going to speak on this measure, but I have been
sitting here listening patiently to the debate and I just am surprised
at the opposition to the rule from the Democrat side.
I am looking at a chart here of all of the individual bills that are
incorporated into this.
H.R. 3047 passed the House,
H.R. 799 on the
Union Calendar, and another on the Union Calendar. Here are four more
that have passed the House. We can go right down the line here. Most of
this legislation has already been acted on by this body, and passed
either unanimously or by overwhelming vote. Not even one of these bills
was controversial.
I would like to say to the other side that before we took over
control of the House 4 years ago, we Republicans were treated quite
badly. We had ranking members of full committees that were not given
the opportunity to offer a substitute. We have changed the protocol in
the Committee on Rules and we never, ever deny the minority party the
right to offer their alternative--not through a motion to recommit or
not through defeating the previous question, but through a substitute.
And they are given ample time.
We offered that to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
I specifically said, and Members can go back upstairs and read the
record, that if the gentleman from California needed waivers, we would
do it. All he needed to do was to print his bill, have it printed in
the Record so it is there for Members to see in the morning. That is
really bending over backwards. We have done everything we can to be
fair, and then I see people stand up here opposing the rule. I just do
not understand it.
Ronald Reagan taught me the value of compromise years ago, and it was
hard to teach me, because as my colleagues saw from yesterday's tribute
on the floor, I am very opinionated. But when we do compromise, it
feels like we are compromising our principles. But that is what this
body is all about. We have to work together. We should be doing that.
I want to assure everybody, all the conservatives in this House, that
I have scoured the bill. There is nothing in the bill that intrudes on,
that infringes on States' rights or the individual rights of local
governments, whether they be towns or villages or cities or counties.
This bill does not do that. So from that point of view, it is a good
bill.
It is a good bill from some of the environmentalists' point of view.
I saw my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), who I
appreciate is going to vote for the rule, but he is going to oppose the
bill. For the Hudson Valley there is very important legislation in the
bill that my good friend the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Jim Hansen), the
subcommittee chairman, has provided.
I brought to the floor a bill not too long ago, and it passed the
House. During debate I brought in the paintings of Frederick Church and
Thomas Cole, which are just outstanding, which pictorialize the entire
northeast, the Hudson Valley, the Adirondack and Catskill Mountains.
That legislation is in here. And every environmentalist that I know in
the mid Hudson Valley supports this legislation. So I just do not know
where all the opposition is coming from.
I think Members should vote for the rule and certainly they should
support the bill. It is a good bill, and I thank
[[Page
H9746]]
the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to say that we do not argue with the fact that there are some
very good provisions in this bill, but the fact is it is my
understanding that over half of the provisions that are in this bill
have never been reported from the committee, and there is over two
dozen provisions that have never, ever had a hearing.
So the people on the committee and the people on the floor of the
House, we do not know what is in this bill and we just want a chance to
take a look at it, debate it, and we cannot do it today with this very
restrictive rule.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Vento).
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. Listening to the appeal of our distinguished friend and chairman
of the Committee on Rules, I would just point out that the history of
Mo Udall and, for that matter, the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller), who most recently led this committee and now has passed
the torch on to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Don Young), was to, in
fact, have open rules on most of these issues.
As has been indicated here, with a hundred measures on this bill, no
opportunity to amend them, some that have not had hearings, some
considerable number, some that are very controversial, if it were only
the matter of the Thomas Cole measure, that has passed this House and
is awaiting action in the Senate, that were included in this bill as a
way to try to optimize the opportunity to enact some of these measures
into law, I think most of us would be trying to work to accomplish
that. It is a difficult task in this format. But given the way that
this has been constructed, and the controversy over many of these
issues, I think it is unreasonable to expect us to accept this type of
substitute.
I think that in order to achieve that, it is not something we are
going to do a slam dunk passage here in the House and score some
points. It is not going to accomplish what is being sought. I think it
has a tendency to polarize. There just is not enough time, given the
rule and where we are at on the floor today, to go through and expect
to get hours and hours of debate on this. And, logically, the gentleman
did not provide that, given the circumstance we are in this week
attempting to end this session.
So I think this is a step backward toward seeing the enactment of the
good provisions and mixing them up with the bad and hoping somehow
that, by rolling the dice here, that we will get to enact these
particular measures. This is not the way to do business. This is not
deliberative. This is not fair. I understand the pressure the Committee
on Rules and the body is under, but this is not a step forward, it is a
step backward.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado
yielding this time to me and the excellent remarks that he has made,
and let me just say a few things.
We have heard all this stuff, but let us get down to the facts on
this baby and what really happened. People are saying, oh, this is
going to be vetoed. We promise it will be vetoed. I want to hearken
back to 2 years ago. We stood here with a bill that had more titles in
it, more bills in it than we have today, and we heard exactly the same
thing: oh, this one will be vetoed.
How many of my colleagues were with me as we stood in the oval office
while the President put his John Henry on that and said, this is a
great way to do legislation. The President of the United States said
that. I do not know if I agree with him that it is a good way to do
legislation.
But now we hear these other arguments. It has all these things in it
that we have not had hearings on. We have not had time on these things.
Well, guess what? Most of these are so minuscule, so infinitesimal that
they amount to nothing. The bills in here that have got things of
substance in it we have had hearings on. We have had a lot of them on
the floor. And when we start looking at some of these others, they are
almost infinitesimal.
What is this rule about and this bill about? It is about compromise.
The whole thing is compromise. My staff, the staff of the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Don Young), the staff on the other side has worked
with others to try to compromise in some of these areas. I almost feel
bad that we have compromised so far on our side. I think we have given
away the store in some particular things.
But I would like to talk about some of those things on this term
compromise. It probably comes down to only two bills in this whole
shooting match that really bothers anybody, and this is probably the
biggest one, right here. It is called San Rafael Swell. This happens to
be an area that I doubt anybody in this room, other than me and maybe
one other, has ever seen, but my colleagues should go look at it. It is
one of the most beautiful geological things the Lord ever put on the
earth.
But as we look at that particular area, the people in Emery County
said someday we have to come to grips with this area. This is where
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid mixed it up with a few people. This
is where there were shootouts and there were mines. This is a very
interesting area. People who go in there are just enthralled with the
history of the area. So they came up with the San Rafael Swell. And the
Emery and Carbon County folks, all those good Democrats down there,
said this is what we will do. We will work out something with the
environmental community that will work. And so they did, and they gave
them about everything. Yet every environmentalist I have talked to said
we do not like the way they have it.
Look at this. This green area goes into wilderness under this bill.
This light green goes into primitive areas that are nonmotorized. So
what is the issue? We are giving them everything they asked for but one
thing, and that is called Sid's Mountain. Please look at this yellow
place right here. That is Sid's mountain. A very interesting place. But
15 years ago Fish and Wildlife and the State of Utah, and fish and
wildlife came from all over America, said this is the ideal place to
have the desert big horn sheep. We do not have a good herd anywhere. We
have some other places, but not anywhere in the west. So they started
the desert big horn sheep.
Guess what the problem is? They have to drink water, just like all
the rest of us do, and there is no water on that mountain. So they came
up with this original idea called guzzlers. For those who do not know
what a guzzler is, let me explain it. It is a large thing that works by
evaporation. And through the sun coming up and then it getting cold, it
evaporates, goes into a trough, and the big horn sheep get their water
there.
However, we all realize the 1964 wilderness bill says what? We cannot
have a mechanized thing in the wilderness. So we cannot have guzzlers.
So they cannot have the sheep. Well, a lot of people want to go in and
see them. There are some roads at the bottom of this, and a lot of
people want to see these sheep.
But when it gets down to this great big thing that we are all mad
about, it comes down to the idea of the San Rafael Swell and the desert
big horn sheep.
Now, we have talked to our environmental friends and asked them what
they have against the desert big horn sheep. That is the whole issue on
this rascal. The desert big horn sheep seems to be the whole thing that
may turn this bill one way or the other. And I am stale waiting for a
member of the Sierra Club or one of the others to stand up and say this
is what we have against the desert big horn sheep.
What it amounts to is the idea of wilderness. They have built their
whole thing on wilderness. They should build it on the term restrictive
areas. It means the same thing, but one is a romantic word and one is
another word.
Let me go through a few others. The Canyon Ferry Reservoir we
considered modification. The Tuskegee Historic Site we went on. The
water projects with the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) we went
on. The Nevada Airport, we worked that out. The
[[Page
H9747]]
things with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Don Young), we came up with
a provision on the Chugach area. The C Canal. The list goes on and on
of things we have agreed to, to make this an acceptable bill.
{time} 1315
I personally would urge the passage of this rule, and I would urge
the passage of this bill. This is a good piece of legislation. We have
played this game time after time. We will hear the same arguments every
time. The fact of the matter is the President signed it the last time,
and I would hope he would see the wisdom in signing it this time.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, moments ago,
HR 4570 was described as a
``delicate balance'' not to be disturbed by votes against either the
resolution or the rule. In fact, the primary justification presented
for passage of the bill was the ``brilliance'' with which a compromise
securing the necessary number of votes was ``engineered.'' Statements
such as these are an unfortunate commentary on the state of affairs in
the nation's capital insofar as they represent not advancement of sound
policy principles but rather a seriously flawed process by which
federal government ``favors'' are distributed in a means which assures
everyone gets a little something if they vote to give enough other
districts a little something too. This is not the procedure by which
Congress should be deciding matters of federal land disposition and
acquisition. In fact, there appears to be no Constitutional authority
for most of what
HR 4570 proposes to do.
Particularly frustrating is that in my attempt to return authority to
the State of Texas for a water project located in the 14th District, I
introduced
HR 2161, The Palmetto Bend Title Transfer Project. Return of
such authority comports with my Constitutional notion that local
control is preferred to unlimited federal authority to dictate from
Washington, the means by which a water project in Edna, Texas will be
managed. I understand that certain Members of Congress may disagree
with the notion of the proper and limited role of the federal
government. The point here, however, is that the ``political process''
embracing the so-called ``high virtue of compromise'' means that in
order for one to vote for less federal authority one must, at the same
time, in this bill, vote for more. Political schizophrenia was never
more rampant. One would have to vote to authorize the transfer of
377,000 acres of public land in Utah to the federal government (at
taxpayer expense of $50 million for Utah's public schools) in order to
return Lake Texana to the State of Texas.Two unrelated issues; two
opposite philosophies as to the proper role of the federal government--
a policy at odds with itself (unless, of course, compromise is one's
ultimate end).
HR 2161 merely facilitates the early payment of the construction
costs (discounted, of course, by the amount of interest no longer due
as a consequence of early payment) and transfers title of the Palmetto
Bend Project to the Texas state authorities. Both the LNRA and TWDB
concur that an early buy-out and title transfer is extremely beneficial
to the economical and operational well-being of the project as well as
the Lake Texana water users. The Texas Legislature and Governor George
W. Bush have both formally supported the early payment and title
transfer. In fact, even the residents of Highland Lakes in Travis
County who initially expressed a concern as to the effects of the title
transfer on the Colorado River Basin, came to support the legislation.
This bill will save Lake Texana water users as much as one million
dollars per year as well as providing an immediate infusion of $43
million dollars to the national treasury. Additionally, all liability
associated with this water project are, under my legislation, assumed
by the state of Texas thus further relieving the financial burden of
the federal government.
Texas has already demonstrated sound management of this resource.
Recreational use of the lake has been well-provided under Texas state
management to include provision of a marina, pavilion, playground, and
boating docks, all funded without federal money. Additionally, a
woodland bird sanctuary and wildlife viewing area will also be
established upon transfer with the assistance of the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department and several environmental organizations.
Members of Congress must not be put in the position of having to
support a massive federal land grab to secure for the residents of
Texas more local control over their water supply. For these reasons,
while I remain committed to the return of Lake Texana to Texas State
authorities, I must reluctantly and necessarily oppose
HR 4570.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill and
in particular to Section Nine which seeks to reduce hazardous fuels in
our national forests. While I oppose many provisions in this bill, I am
particularly concerned with the process by which this legislation has
made its way to the floor. Most of the provisions have circumvented
Committee consideration and some have never even been considered by the
relevant Subcommittee. There is a reason why there is a detailed
procedure for the consideration of legislation in the House--a
procedure that I strongly support--and I am very dismayed that
H.R.
4570 was not developed in this way. As many of my colleagues are aware,
I have been very active in reforming management policies in our
National Forests. Until his point, the dialogue on this issue between
various interested parties within Congress has been very productive.
However, the provisions pertaining to hazardous fuels reduction in this
bill are a step backwards in improving the management of our National
Forests. Section Nine authorizes the Forest Service to combine
commercial timber sales with forest stewardship contracting. Further,
it establishes an off-budget account that while initially funded by
transferring money from the hazardous fuels reduction program, is
regenerated through timber receipts from these sales.
As a fiscal conservative, I cannot support the connection of these
contracts. Providing offsets for timber purchasers to do stewardship
work in connection with a timber sale may have the result of paying
timber purchasers to take our natural resources. No Member with any
fiscal sense should support such a policy.
While this practice may work in private forestry, it is not something
I can support on our federal lands. If private contracting is the most
effective and cost-efficient option for performing stewardship
contracting, it should be used, but separate to a commercial timber
sale. There is no reason that these two services need to be connected
in a contract.
In addition, since I already have concerns about existing off-budget
accounts maintained by the Forest Service, I cannot support the
establishment of another one. Everyone can agree on the fact that the
Forest Service has fiscal accountability problems. Allowing them to use
more money without Congressional oversight is completely irresponsible.
Since I know that there are many good and important provisions in
this bill, I am sorry that I cannot support it. However, my concerns
with other provisions are serious enough to warrant my overall
opposition. It is my hope that in the future this sort of process for
developing legislation will be avoided and real progress can be made.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to
ten percent of the Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act of 1998.
This massive 481 page document that rolls almost 100 bills into one
package is ninety percent perfect. It makes needed technical
corrections to the 1996 Omnibus National Parks Act, makes important
adjustments to park boundaries, designates desirable land as heritage
and historic areas, and reauthorizes the Historic Preservation Fund.
The bill even establishes the transcontinental American Discovery Trail
which ends in Cape Henlopen State Park in my State of Delaware.
However, ten percent of this bill needs to be separated out and
addressed on an individual basis.
That ten percent includes some of the following measures:
Opens areas proposed or being managed as wilderness to possible
development, including the Everglades National Park which Congress has
spent millions of dollars to restore;
Hands over title and operation of some western water projects to
private interests without requiring them to pay full value for the
project. This year, the House passed the Salton Sea Reclamation Act
with a price tax of almost one-third of the Bureau of Reclamation's
annual budget. There is a long list of other reclamation projects
seeking funding. Why then would we want to sell existing projects at
less than their fair market value? it is not fiscally responsible
especially in a year where the President wants to spend the Social
Security Surplus on ``emergency'' spending;
Waives environmental review procedures for a proposed road that cuts
through one of the richest wetlands on the Pacific Coast of North
America, as well as a migratory bird nesting area, and salmon spawning
grounds. The value of this road may well outweigh these environmental
concerns, but we should not blindly authorize the road easement without
stopping to study its full environmental impact and plotting a course
that minimizes the environmental harm. That is simply poor management.
Ninety percent of this bill could have been one of the shining stars
in the 105th Congress' environmental record. Instead, due to the
controversial ten percent it will either die in this chamber, never be
considered in the Senate, or be vetoed at the President's desk. We have
precious few days left in the legislative session and many of us need
to return to our districts and debate serious national issues with
political opponents. Let us not be the only institution to pass an
unsignable law that has
[[Page
H9748]]
not been thoroughly examined by the committee process, and ten percent
of which bypasses or degrades the world-class environmental protections
we have established in this country.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Omnibus
National Parks and Public Lands Act. In particular, I would like to
address one portion of the act regarding Cumberland Island National
Seashore in my district.
Cumberland Island National Seashore is governed largely by two
establishing acts. The first, in 1972, created the seashore. The
second, the 1982, established a large wilderness area on the island.
Unfortunately, this act was assembled hastily and before the National
Park Service's wilderness suitability study was completed. The
unfortunate result was that the wilderness designation was placed on
top of a number of important historic assets, essentially locking them
away and seriously jeopardizing their existence. While the listing of
these structures, districts, and sites on the National Register of
Historic Places represents the Federal Government's obligation to
protect them, their inclusion within the wilderness in 1982 seriously
undermines that effort. Not only does it impede public access to these
treasures, it presents significant obstacles to their preservation.
These concerns were recognized and noted to Congress in writing at the
time by both the President and the Department of Interior, but they
were not corrected.
Mr. Chairman, Cumberland Island is a beautiful and unique island. The
diversity of its resources is one of its greatest strengths. My
intention in introducing this legislation is to recognize the value of
this diversity and protect it. I believe it is indeed possible--and
imperative in this case--to protect both the natural and historic
assets. They do not have to be mutually exclusive goals.
This bill takes three basic steps to achieve this balance. First, it
removes the wilderness or potential wilderness label from structures
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This provision will
lift restrictions on the Park Service as to the steps they can take to
preserve them. It also removes the fundamental conflict of mandates on
how these structures are to be treated: whether they are to be
preserved according to the Historic Preservation Act of allowed to
``revert to their natural state'' consistent with the Wilderness Act.
The bill also seeks to provide public access to these sites. Because
they are encased in wilderness, the only way for the public to visit
them is by making a 15 to 30 mile round trip hike. Obviously, only very
healthy backpackers can ever see and learn from these sites. A two-
hundred year old road (which itself has been designated as a national
historic asset), known as the ``Main Road'' or ``Grand Avenue'' runs
from the south end of the island up to many of these historic sites
within the wilderness. Our bill allows this road to be used in some
manner which does not have an undue negative impact on the wilderness
so that the park's visitors can see, study, and enjoy these sites.
Unfortunately, under the present circumstances, few visitors even
realize all that exists on the island, let alone the events that
enhance their historic significance. Cumberland's history is as rich as
Georgia's. Off its shore, pirates once loomed and British and Spanish
warships fought. Soldiers were stationed there in the War of 1812.
Revolutionary War hero Nathaniel Greene and his remarkable wife Katie
Littlefield Greene farmed and planted there. Their Cumberland Island
timber business supplied the wood for ``Old Ironsides.'' Thomas
Carnegie built mansions on the Island and once had over 300 servants
there. On the north end of the island is a historic settlement called
Half Moon Bluff founded by newly emancipated slaves. This was one of
the first free Black settlements in America and one of the few which
embodies and represents their transition from slavery to freedom and
landownership. In all, there are nine Cumberland island sites and
districts and many structures on the National Register of Historic
Places. Today many of their remnants are gone, and the rest are
decaying.
The third component of the legislation authorizes the restoration of
the beautiful historic Plum Orchard mansion which has dangerously
deteriorated. This house was gifted to the Federal Government on the
condition that it be maintained and enjoyed by the public. I am sorry
to say that
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
OMNIBUS NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS ACT OF 1998
(House of Representatives - October 07, 1998)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H9741-H9870]
{time} 1230
OMNIBUS NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS ACT OF 1998
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 573 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 573
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of the
rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration
of the bill (
H.R. 4570) to provide for certain boundary
adjustments and conveyances involving public lands, to
establish and improve the management of certain heritage
areas, historic areas, National Parks, wild and scenic
rivers, and national trails, to protect communities by
reducing hazardous fuels levels on public lands, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Resources. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and shall
be considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall be in
order except those specified in section 2 of this resolution.
Each amendment may be offered only in the order specified,
may be offered only by a Member specified or his designee,
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time
specified equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the
House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order
against the first amendment specified in section 2 are
waived. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1)
postpone until a time during further consideration in the
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows
another electronic vote without intervening business,
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the
first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with our without
instructions.
Sec. 2. The amendments described in the first section of
this resolution are as follows:
(1) the amendments by Representative Hansen of Utah printed
in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause
6 of rule XXIII, which shall be debatable for twenty minutes;
and
(2) an amendment by Representative Miller of California if
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII on October 5,
1998, which shall be debatable for one hour.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. McInnis) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, during
the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purposes of debate only.
Madam Speaker, the proposed rule is for a modified closed rule
providing for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources.
The rule provides that no amendment will be in order except, one, the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) printed in
the Congressional Record and numbered 1, which shall be debatable for a
period of 20 minutes; and two, the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Miller) if printed in the Congressional Record on
October 5th, 1998, which shall be debatable for 1 hour.
The rule provides that the two amendments listed above may be offered
only in the order specified, may be offered only by a Member specified,
or his designee, and shall be considered as read, shall be debatable
for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
The rule waives all points of order against the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
In addition, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the
Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce
votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions. This rule was voted out of the Committee on Rules
by a voice vote.
Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation, the Omnibus National Parks
and Public Lands Act of 1998, addresses a wide variety of important
national parks, wild and scenic rivers, heritage areas, national
forests, and many other public lands issues and concerns.
This bill includes new protections for national parks and heritage
and wilderness areas in 36 States throughout this Nation. There are
over 80 proposals from approximately 70 Members of the United States
Congress within this underlying legislation. This is critical
[[Page
H9742]]
legislation. This deals with our national parks. It is a good approach
to our national park needs.
As I stated earlier, Madam Speaker, this provides much protection and
many of the projects that are critical across the country for our
national park system.
Madam Speaker,
H.R. 4570 is a bipartisan effort. As I mentioned
earlier, Madam Speaker, we have a number of different congressional
districts who have projects contained within this bill, both Democrat
and Republican. This is a bipartisan bill. It is an effort to get a
number of very important pieces of legislation passed because,
obviously, we are in the final few days of this session.
Madam Speaker, some groups have expressed concern with a few sections
included in 4570. Consistent with the bipartisan spirit in which this
bill was drafted, compromise language has been worked out for many of
these sections, including major changes to the San Rafael section, the
NEPA parity provision, Chugach, Cumberland Island, hazardous fuels
reduction, the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Canyon Ferry Reservoir,
Paoli Battlefield, Tuskegee Airmen, and the Emigrant Wilderness
provisions. Other controversial sections are also deleted by the
manager's amendment.
The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), chairman of the Subcommittee on
National Parks and Public Lands of the Committee on Resources, has made
significant efforts and he has made significant concessions to the
groups that have expressed concerns with the provisions of this bill.
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this bill includes over 80
proposals from about 70 Members of Congress contained within the
legislation. I am one of those 70 Members with provisions in this bill.
Title 13 of the Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act of 1998
proposes a transfer of the title to the facilities of the Pine River
Irrigation Project from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to the Pine
River Irrigation District.
My piece of this bill is an excellent example of how we, the United
States Congress, can govern in a better way, a way that involves
communities and local and State government, a way that empowers the
people that we represent.
In response to local initiative, and in my opinion demonstrating one
of the best examples of the so-called ``New West'' model of cooperation
to achieve local control of public resources, a proposal to transfer
title to the Pine River Irrigation Project was worked out.
I believe this type of action, shifting Federal control of
appropriate projects to local communities, and doing so only after
significant commitment by interested government agencies and extensive
input from the public impacted by the proposal, will serve as the model
for the future efforts of this nature.
Madam Speaker, this bill contains too many other examples of good
governance and good public lands policies to discuss in detail. I
encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, this is a modified closed rule. It allows for the
consideration of the National Parks and Public Lands Act of 1998. As my
colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) has described,
this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Resources.
The rule permits the manager's amendment. The Committee on Resources
ranking minority member chose not to offer an amendment. No other floor
amendments can be offered. I understand the need for cutting corners at
the end of the session in order to move legislation before adjournment,
but that is not a good enough excuse for the bill before us today. The
bill contains more than 100 provisions affecting specific parks,
monuments, landmarks, trails, and heritage areas.
Some of these provisions were originally introduced as freestanding
bills, and have partially gone through the normal Congressional
process, including hearings and reporting by the Committee on
Resources. However, other provisions have not. In fact, some sections
have only seen the light of day in the subcommittee amendment which was
made available yesterday for the first time. Some of these provisions
are very controversial, and would never have survived if they had been
subject to an open committee process.
There is no committee report for this bill, there have been no
hearings, no Congressional Budget Office cost estimate, no Federal
mandate statement, no constitutional authority statement. What is the
point of having a committee process if we are going to bypass it on a
regular basis?
The bill is strongly opposed by a coalition of conservation and
environmental groups. The administration would veto the bill if enacted
in its present form. Unfortunately, the rule will not permit Members to
offer amendments to improve the bill. Madam Speaker, Members deserve
the opportunity to debate and amend the bill. Unfortunately, this does
not happen at the committee level, and this rule will not permit it on
the House floor.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, first I should mention that in Ohio we establish the
American Discovery Trail, an important aspect of this bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on
Resources, who I think is a good leader on this bill and somebody who
understands the details of this bill.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, this is a good rule that should
be adopted.
First of all, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Hansen). He has done an excellent job. In fact, he has done more
than I would have done in the realm of trying to become reality in the
sense of compromise with all walks, all thoughts, and all
understanding. He has done an excellent job.
This is a pro-environment, pro-park, pro-history preservation bill
that will improve our national parks, wild and scenic rivers, heritage
areas, national forests, and many other public lands. Most of the
sections of this bill have gone through individual hearings and
followed the legislative process on freestanding bills.
Sixty-seven Members of this Congress from both parties have worked on
separate pieces of legislation in this bill. We have worked closely
with the Members on the important projects, Members of the Republican
side and Democrat side. This bill affects 36 different States, the
District of Columbia, and will benefit millions of people.
I will not list all the projects of this bill, the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Hansen) will speak about that in the general debate. Let me
say, though, this bill is a delicate balance, a very delicate balance.
There will be some Members who believe we have spent too much time on
the parks, some who believe we have not spent enough. I think it is a
good investment.
There are those who are going to make the usual accusations we are
not protecting the environment enough, but this bill creates new
opportunities for recreation, for protection of our wildlife, and for
improving the quality of life of Americans. This bill deserves the
support of every Member of this House.
May I say, Madam Speaker, that for those who may think about voting
against this bill or this rule, I would suggest respectfully, because I
have worked with each Member who has come to me, it is going to be very
difficult in the future to listen to someone sincerely when they do not
support their own legislation, or when they suggest that ``I want to
have mine, but no one else gets theirs.''
I suggest that those things that are in Ohio, those things that are
in Pennsylvania and California, Mississippi, all those other States,
those Members had better think very carefully about this great bill.
As far as the administration threatening to veto it, I have never for
the life of me understood why we have to listen to the administration
with regards to administration saying they
[[Page
H9743]]
are going to veto it. We are supposed to be the governing body for the
people. If he wants to veto a parks bill, let the President veto it. I
have no objection to that, if he wishes to do so. That is our form of
government.
But I have listened day after day to this President threatening
vetoes. I am saying, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves if we listen
just to the President. Under our Constitution, we are the House of the
people. It is our decision. If we want to vote this bill down, fine,
but do not vote it down because in fact he threatens a veto. If Members
want a king, they can have a king. I suggest the President would make a
very poor king.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Miller), the former chairman and now the ranking
member of the Committee on Resources.
Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Madam Speaker, this rule is adequate for this purpose. It does
provide for an amendment. Obviously, the problem is that this bill
cannot be amended in such a fashion to make it a better bill. We have
declined to offer an amendment. We think the bill should be defeated.
It should be defeated because it is contrary to the procedures of this
House. It is contrary to sound environmental policy. It has many, many
bad provisions in it.
It also has some very good provisions in it. Unfortunately, those
good provisions are being used as bait. They are being used to try to
enable some bad things to happen in this legislation, and to provide
camouflage for the underlying provisions in this bill that are very bad
policy.
That is why the administration has said it will recommend a veto of
this legislation, should it pass. The reason Members ought to listen to
this recommendation is so we do not go through this charade and then
end up with nothing.
The fact of the matter is there are many, many portions of this bill
sponsored by Members on both sides of the aisle that are
noncontroversial, that have bipartisan support, and that can be dealt
with and passed out of the House almost immediately on unanimous
consent. We can deal with those pieces of legislation.
{time} 1245
There are others that have had no hearings that we know very little
about, or are so controversial that they simply drag the whole package
down.
So Members can make a decision. They can vote ``no'' on this. Then we
can concentrate on passing legislation that will be without
controversy, that will address the needs of many, many Members, or they
can continue the charade that somehow this bill is going to pass, when
many of the Senators who are responsible for the jurisdiction of this
bill have indicated that the Senate will not give consideration to it.
Unfortunately, the Senate has passed some noncontroversial portions
of this bill and sent them off to the President. So the constituency
for this bill is declining, and the controversy is increasing. That
does not sound like a formula for success at the end of the session.
The fact of the matter is we have had all of this year in which many
of the provisions of this bill could have been brought before us and
then we could have dealt with them. But at the end of the session, this
is a veto. It is unacceptable. It is bad policy, and I would urge all
Members to vote against it and understand that not only the
administration, but all major environmental groups oppose this
legislation.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I think we need to lay out very clearly here,
especially in light of the criticism from the gentleman from California
(Mr. Miller) about the process that we are following. The gentleman
from California is quick to step up to the plate and criticize this
bill. But the gentleman from California has not been very quick to step
up to the plate and offer a substitute. Offer something better.
It is very easy to stand on this House floor and criticize the
Republicans and criticize the Democrats who have worked to put this
bill together. But I think that that criticism loses some of its
credibility when one who steps up has the opportunity under the rule,
has the opportunity under the rule to offer a substitute to put in
place of this a better bill, stands up and criticizes us. I think this
criticism would be much better received had they had a substitute on
that side.
I would add that that is not a Democrat or Republican kind of bill.
This is a bipartisan bill. So, we have a few Members on the Democratic
side criticizing this thing. But still, out of fairness, the Republican
leadership out of fairness insisted that these Democrats who are
objecting to this bill have an opportunity, out of fairness, have an
opportunity to offer their own proposal.
They declined to do that. Why? Because they do not want any
criticism. It is much easier to criticize somebody than offer a
substitute or come up with a good alternative. And that is the exact
route they are traveling, and in my opinion that route comes to a dead
end.
Madam Speaker, this is a good bill, a good rule; it is a fair bill,
and a fair rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall)
for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. It is only at the
end of the session that we will probably ever see rules like this in
which there is simply no opportunity for the body to work its will on
what constitutes almost 100 different land use and park measures in one
bill.
Some of these have been passed and are noncontroversial and have
received deliberation of the Committee on Resources and the
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands. But many of these
provisions, of course, have not been considered or debated on the House
floor on their merits. We are forced to swallow whole in this case
almost a hundred different modifications to various land use policy.
Of course, it is easy enough to say that there is an alliance here
between Members that have some provision in this bill, and that they
are basically being force-fed 99 other bills along with the one
provision that they want to see enacted into law. But this is not the
way to do business in terms of park and public land policy.
If these issues had been vetted, if they had been amended, if they
had been debated on their merits, but there is no opportunity here
today to in fact amend or to extract these specific provisions from
this bill and move on in a deliberate way with the measures that are
before us. There is simply no way to do it.
This is sort of a sorry excuse. I think the committee has worked very
hard over the last 2 years in having hearings. I know I've sat through
my share of such hearings. I am a little surprised that at the end of
the session now they bring forth this type of bill, when there is not
consensus on it, when all the major conservation and environmental
groups are against it and numerous proposals of controversy bad policy
and no hearings on the topic.
It is bad policy. It is a bad rule. This is not providing the ability
of the body to work its will. This is simply a slam dunk of 100
different land use decisions that frankly repeal long-standing
wilderness designations, that provide for roads, provide for other
types of activities, and it is being force-fed to the Members as if
they have to accept it in order to gain some reasonable changes in
terms of public lands and parks bills that they want. The veiled threat
and policy is inherent in this approach.
Quite frankly, I think the Congress has rightfully reserved to itself
some of the responsibility to work on parks and public lands bills. But
this type of action, I think, is the type of action that will, in fact,
argue for changing that particular responsibility and conveying this
responsibilty to the administration, because I think it is
irresponsible to act on a measure of this nature, of this magnitude, in
this rule.
Madam Speaker, this is simply a slam-dunk rule that is going to not
provide for deliberation or consideration. It is an attempt to push
through this body measures that cannot survive on their own merit on an
up-or-down vote, and they are shoved into this measure.
[[Page
H9744]]
Someone talks about it being ``park pork.'' It is more that that.
Part of this pork sausage is rancid meat that is into this omnibus park
pork sausage. As Bismarck said, those that like laws and sausages
should never watch either being made. I would hope we would move away
from such an approach. It is not so much sausage, but that we have
rancid meat in here that destroys our parks and wilderness system, that
are an affront to the American people, and that is why I urge a ``no''
vote on this rule and on this bill.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman's are very eloquent comments, but where
is the meat? The gentleman has an opportunity to offer a substitute. If
he thinks this is a rotten bill, he should come up with a better car.
We are not prohibiting. Our rule is very specific. Let me make it
clear that this rule allows the opposition to come up with a substitute
through the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). He is free to do
that.
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield? I would be happy
to respond.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I would be happy to yield in a moment, if
the gentleman would sit around and listen to the debate.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla).
(Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and
of this legislation that is a result of a lot of hard work between both
sides on this committee. The gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and
the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) have done an outstanding job
in moving this legislation forward.
This bill contains, as the chairman alluded to earlier, many stories
out in the heartland that will result in positive changes in
communities affecting National Parks all over the country. It is a good
bipartisan bill, and every Member of Congress that is affected by this
bill has a good story to tell about the changes that would result when
this legislation passes.
I will just highlight briefly what will happen in my congressional
district. There is a piece of land that the owners would like to donate
to the Fort Davis National Historic Site. And there are other bills as
well that have other local significance, and these changes should not
fall prey to partisan politics.
In my part of the country, the bill would permit a simple 16-acre
expansion of the Fort Davis historical site. This legislation is
necessary because the original legislation limited the historic site to
460 acres.
Fort Davis is located in the heart of west Texas, a wonderful part of
the country nestled in an area that is very scenic in its own rough and
rugged way. I am proud to represent this area, and I would like to
invite my colleagues to visit this area any time they are passing
through my State.
That entire area of the State is the most popular tourist attraction
in the State of Texas now. The fort was a key post in the defense of
west Texas and thus played a major role in this region's history. From
1854 to 1891, troops at the post guarded immigrants, freighters, and
stage coaches on the San Antonio-El Paso Road. Fort Davis is the best
remaining example in the Southwest of the typical post-Civil War
frontier fort. The post has extensive surviving structures and ruins.
The particular parcel of land that would be added is known as
Sleeping Lion Mountain. This land overlooks the park's historic
landmarks. It is adjacent to the park's southern boundary, and I
believe that the inclusion of this tract of land into the site would
ensure the visual and historic integrity for this State and national
treasure.
The land is slated to be donated to the National Park Service by the
Conservation Fund. The land has been purchased by the Conservation
Fund. They secured the funds from several private foundations to
purchase this land. The purchase of the land was completed in April,
and they are simply waiting for us to act. In fact, they have been
waiting for a long time for us to act.
Madam Speaker, this park expansion has the blessing of the local
community and is supported by the Texas Historical Commission. This is
a simple piece of legislation that allows for a minor park expansion.
And reflecting on the story that I just told, Madam Speaker, there are
countless others around the country that could be told about a positive
change in their community and their national parks that could result in
something good for the communities that these communities are crying
out for.
Madam Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen)
and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), as well as the
gentleman from New York (Chairman Solomon), my friend who is sitting to
my right, and also the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) who has
worked hard on this rule and on this legislation.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento), out of fairness, for him to respond.
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
McInnis), and I will certainly also get time from the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hall). But this rule does not even provide the opportunity
for 5 minutes debate for each of the measures in the bill. I mean, that
is its sort of stand-on-your-head-type logic, because it says we can
offer a substitute, but this rule waives all points of order against
the substitute offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), but
does not waive them for the substitute if offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Miller). And we did not know what the substitute was
going to be, and we were supposed to have the amendment in by Monday.
It is an unequal playing field and a bad bill and a bad rule.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think the gentleman from Minnesota has brought up a couple of valid
points. I am not sure that the gentleman is aware of the historical
perspective up in the Committee on Rules. Waivers were offered, and on
top of that, we gave the other side an hour, 1 hour, of debate on the
substitute. I am baffled by the fact that there is such strong
criticism coming about this bill, yet no one who criticizes has decided
to step forward with a better car.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I would just point out that I think it is
an impossible process when we have nearly a hundred measures in here
that are important. The measure that the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla) mentioned is important, and I do not have any objections to
it. But this does not provide 5 minutes of debate, not even a minute of
debate for each measure in the bill. I think these measures deserve
attention.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the
gentleman, that is exactly the point. It is a very complicated bill. It
has lots of different projects in it. We are not going to get everybody
in here happy about this all the time. But this is probably, this is
clearly the most critical bill dealing in helping our national parks we
have had this session.
We cannot put together the perfect model because we have too many
players and projects. This is the best we are going to get. And if the
gentleman could have done better, he should have introduced it.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert).
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but in
opposition to the bill. It is a perfectly fine rule for a fatally
flawed bill.
I had hoped not to be standing here today. I had hoped the Committee
on Resources would pull together a noncontroversial bill, one that
would be signable, that actually had a chance to become law. That
result was encouraged before the bill was even introduced and there was
an offer to negotiate.
Indeed, discussions did take place for 4 days last week. But the
Committee on Resources opened those negotiations by listing the items
that they considered nonnegotiable, and they were some of the worst
provisions of
[[Page
H9745]]
the bill. That is not a very promising way to start negotiations.
But we still tried to work out issues concerning forestry, Bureau of
Reclamation projects, and the rules governing wilderness areas.
Unfortunately, none of these issues was fully resolved. We did reach a
compromise on one provision, procedures for a NEPA waiver for certain
forests.
In short, the bill and the manager's amendment do not address my
concerns or the concerns of so many of my colleagues. If my colleagues
have heard otherwise, they have been misled.
So, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, but oppose the bill; a
bill that could have been negotiated, a bill that could have been
noncontroversial, a bill that could have helped Americans all around
the country, but a bill that instead is opposed by every environmental
group.
It is opposed by the Taxpayers for Common Sense, it is opposed by the
administration, it is a bill that is going nowhere, regardless of what
happens here today. The majority of this bill could have been passed on
the suspension calendar if the temptation had been resisted to deal
with controversial matters that have never been the subject of full and
open hearings.
I have no objection to the rule. It is a tribute to my friend and
good chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon). But I urge
defeat of the bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
{time} 1300
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to
both the rule and to
H.R. 4570. I say reluctant because this is likely
the last parks bill to be considered by the House in this Congress, and
I would have liked it to be bipartisan.
Madam Speaker, this bill contains laudable provisions which should be
enacted into law. The bill contains many provisions supported today by
both sides of the aisle, and many more provisions, I believe, that
could have been negotiated into forms both sides could have supported.
Over the past several weeks I have had discussions with several Members
concerning their sections of this bill, and I was prepared to work with
them and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) to craft a bill that
could have passed the House today. Such a bill could stand a good
chance of being enacted into law.
Madam Speaker, among the provisions which I believe there is
bipartisan support for are the expansion of the Fort Davis National
Historic Site in Texas, expansion of the Arches National Park in Utah,
establishment of the Thomas Cole National Historic Site in New York,
the amendments to the boundaries of the Abraham Lincoln Birth Place
National Historic Site in Kentucky, the Automobile National Heritage
Area in Michigan and Indiana, and the land exchanges involving Yosemite
National Park and the Cape Cod National Seashore.
Among the provisions I believe, Madam Speaker, that could have been
negotiated to acceptable resolutions are the Cumberland Island National
Seashore in Georgia and the San Rafael Swell National Conservation Area
in Utah.
With all due respect to my dear friend and colleagues, the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), even
with the changes contained in today's amendment, there are many
provisions which I cannot support in good conscience. Among those are
the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land, the requirements for congressional
approval of national monuments, and changes in environmental laws which
go farther than I believe are beneficial to our public resources.
Madam Speaker, these are honest differences on how best to manage our
public parks, lands and forests. Based on my subcommittee work with the
gentleman from Utah over the past 2 years, I think many of these
differences could have worked out. There are others, however, that,
given the number of them and basic philosophical differences between
the Members, we probably could not have resolved. I believe we should
have saved the provisions for which there is strong support by pulling
others from this bill. Perhaps this is unacceptable from the majority's
perspective, but as we move through these last days of this Congress, I
had hoped that we could have focused on moving to enactment as many
meritorious bills as possible. With more compromise from the parties
involved, we could have done this.
Madam Speaker, as I noted earlier, I would have preferred to be
speaking in support of this legislation, but given the substantive
differences, I feel compelled to recommend to my colleagues to vote
against this rule as well as the bill.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time. I was not going to speak on this measure, but I have been
sitting here listening patiently to the debate and I just am surprised
at the opposition to the rule from the Democrat side.
I am looking at a chart here of all of the individual bills that are
incorporated into this.
H.R. 3047 passed the House,
H.R. 799 on the
Union Calendar, and another on the Union Calendar. Here are four more
that have passed the House. We can go right down the line here. Most of
this legislation has already been acted on by this body, and passed
either unanimously or by overwhelming vote. Not even one of these bills
was controversial.
I would like to say to the other side that before we took over
control of the House 4 years ago, we Republicans were treated quite
badly. We had ranking members of full committees that were not given
the opportunity to offer a substitute. We have changed the protocol in
the Committee on Rules and we never, ever deny the minority party the
right to offer their alternative--not through a motion to recommit or
not through defeating the previous question, but through a substitute.
And they are given ample time.
We offered that to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
I specifically said, and Members can go back upstairs and read the
record, that if the gentleman from California needed waivers, we would
do it. All he needed to do was to print his bill, have it printed in
the Record so it is there for Members to see in the morning. That is
really bending over backwards. We have done everything we can to be
fair, and then I see people stand up here opposing the rule. I just do
not understand it.
Ronald Reagan taught me the value of compromise years ago, and it was
hard to teach me, because as my colleagues saw from yesterday's tribute
on the floor, I am very opinionated. But when we do compromise, it
feels like we are compromising our principles. But that is what this
body is all about. We have to work together. We should be doing that.
I want to assure everybody, all the conservatives in this House, that
I have scoured the bill. There is nothing in the bill that intrudes on,
that infringes on States' rights or the individual rights of local
governments, whether they be towns or villages or cities or counties.
This bill does not do that. So from that point of view, it is a good
bill.
It is a good bill from some of the environmentalists' point of view.
I saw my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), who I
appreciate is going to vote for the rule, but he is going to oppose the
bill. For the Hudson Valley there is very important legislation in the
bill that my good friend the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Jim Hansen), the
subcommittee chairman, has provided.
I brought to the floor a bill not too long ago, and it passed the
House. During debate I brought in the paintings of Frederick Church and
Thomas Cole, which are just outstanding, which pictorialize the entire
northeast, the Hudson Valley, the Adirondack and Catskill Mountains.
That legislation is in here. And every environmentalist that I know in
the mid Hudson Valley supports this legislation. So I just do not know
where all the opposition is coming from.
I think Members should vote for the rule and certainly they should
support the bill. It is a good bill, and I thank
[[Page
H9746]]
the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to say that we do not argue with the fact that there are some
very good provisions in this bill, but the fact is it is my
understanding that over half of the provisions that are in this bill
have never been reported from the committee, and there is over two
dozen provisions that have never, ever had a hearing.
So the people on the committee and the people on the floor of the
House, we do not know what is in this bill and we just want a chance to
take a look at it, debate it, and we cannot do it today with this very
restrictive rule.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Vento).
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. Listening to the appeal of our distinguished friend and chairman
of the Committee on Rules, I would just point out that the history of
Mo Udall and, for that matter, the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller), who most recently led this committee and now has passed
the torch on to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Don Young), was to, in
fact, have open rules on most of these issues.
As has been indicated here, with a hundred measures on this bill, no
opportunity to amend them, some that have not had hearings, some
considerable number, some that are very controversial, if it were only
the matter of the Thomas Cole measure, that has passed this House and
is awaiting action in the Senate, that were included in this bill as a
way to try to optimize the opportunity to enact some of these measures
into law, I think most of us would be trying to work to accomplish
that. It is a difficult task in this format. But given the way that
this has been constructed, and the controversy over many of these
issues, I think it is unreasonable to expect us to accept this type of
substitute.
I think that in order to achieve that, it is not something we are
going to do a slam dunk passage here in the House and score some
points. It is not going to accomplish what is being sought. I think it
has a tendency to polarize. There just is not enough time, given the
rule and where we are at on the floor today, to go through and expect
to get hours and hours of debate on this. And, logically, the gentleman
did not provide that, given the circumstance we are in this week
attempting to end this session.
So I think this is a step backward toward seeing the enactment of the
good provisions and mixing them up with the bad and hoping somehow
that, by rolling the dice here, that we will get to enact these
particular measures. This is not the way to do business. This is not
deliberative. This is not fair. I understand the pressure the Committee
on Rules and the body is under, but this is not a step forward, it is a
step backward.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado
yielding this time to me and the excellent remarks that he has made,
and let me just say a few things.
We have heard all this stuff, but let us get down to the facts on
this baby and what really happened. People are saying, oh, this is
going to be vetoed. We promise it will be vetoed. I want to hearken
back to 2 years ago. We stood here with a bill that had more titles in
it, more bills in it than we have today, and we heard exactly the same
thing: oh, this one will be vetoed.
How many of my colleagues were with me as we stood in the oval office
while the President put his John Henry on that and said, this is a
great way to do legislation. The President of the United States said
that. I do not know if I agree with him that it is a good way to do
legislation.
But now we hear these other arguments. It has all these things in it
that we have not had hearings on. We have not had time on these things.
Well, guess what? Most of these are so minuscule, so infinitesimal that
they amount to nothing. The bills in here that have got things of
substance in it we have had hearings on. We have had a lot of them on
the floor. And when we start looking at some of these others, they are
almost infinitesimal.
What is this rule about and this bill about? It is about compromise.
The whole thing is compromise. My staff, the staff of the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Don Young), the staff on the other side has worked
with others to try to compromise in some of these areas. I almost feel
bad that we have compromised so far on our side. I think we have given
away the store in some particular things.
But I would like to talk about some of those things on this term
compromise. It probably comes down to only two bills in this whole
shooting match that really bothers anybody, and this is probably the
biggest one, right here. It is called San Rafael Swell. This happens to
be an area that I doubt anybody in this room, other than me and maybe
one other, has ever seen, but my colleagues should go look at it. It is
one of the most beautiful geological things the Lord ever put on the
earth.
But as we look at that particular area, the people in Emery County
said someday we have to come to grips with this area. This is where
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid mixed it up with a few people. This
is where there were shootouts and there were mines. This is a very
interesting area. People who go in there are just enthralled with the
history of the area. So they came up with the San Rafael Swell. And the
Emery and Carbon County folks, all those good Democrats down there,
said this is what we will do. We will work out something with the
environmental community that will work. And so they did, and they gave
them about everything. Yet every environmentalist I have talked to said
we do not like the way they have it.
Look at this. This green area goes into wilderness under this bill.
This light green goes into primitive areas that are nonmotorized. So
what is the issue? We are giving them everything they asked for but one
thing, and that is called Sid's Mountain. Please look at this yellow
place right here. That is Sid's mountain. A very interesting place. But
15 years ago Fish and Wildlife and the State of Utah, and fish and
wildlife came from all over America, said this is the ideal place to
have the desert big horn sheep. We do not have a good herd anywhere. We
have some other places, but not anywhere in the west. So they started
the desert big horn sheep.
Guess what the problem is? They have to drink water, just like all
the rest of us do, and there is no water on that mountain. So they came
up with this original idea called guzzlers. For those who do not know
what a guzzler is, let me explain it. It is a large thing that works by
evaporation. And through the sun coming up and then it getting cold, it
evaporates, goes into a trough, and the big horn sheep get their water
there.
However, we all realize the 1964 wilderness bill says what? We cannot
have a mechanized thing in the wilderness. So we cannot have guzzlers.
So they cannot have the sheep. Well, a lot of people want to go in and
see them. There are some roads at the bottom of this, and a lot of
people want to see these sheep.
But when it gets down to this great big thing that we are all mad
about, it comes down to the idea of the San Rafael Swell and the desert
big horn sheep.
Now, we have talked to our environmental friends and asked them what
they have against the desert big horn sheep. That is the whole issue on
this rascal. The desert big horn sheep seems to be the whole thing that
may turn this bill one way or the other. And I am stale waiting for a
member of the Sierra Club or one of the others to stand up and say this
is what we have against the desert big horn sheep.
What it amounts to is the idea of wilderness. They have built their
whole thing on wilderness. They should build it on the term restrictive
areas. It means the same thing, but one is a romantic word and one is
another word.
Let me go through a few others. The Canyon Ferry Reservoir we
considered modification. The Tuskegee Historic Site we went on. The
water projects with the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) we went
on. The Nevada Airport, we worked that out. The
[[Page
H9747]]
things with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Don Young), we came up with
a provision on the Chugach area. The C Canal. The list goes on and on
of things we have agreed to, to make this an acceptable bill.
{time} 1315
I personally would urge the passage of this rule, and I would urge
the passage of this bill. This is a good piece of legislation. We have
played this game time after time. We will hear the same arguments every
time. The fact of the matter is the President signed it the last time,
and I would hope he would see the wisdom in signing it this time.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, moments ago,
HR 4570 was described as a
``delicate balance'' not to be disturbed by votes against either the
resolution or the rule. In fact, the primary justification presented
for passage of the bill was the ``brilliance'' with which a compromise
securing the necessary number of votes was ``engineered.'' Statements
such as these are an unfortunate commentary on the state of affairs in
the nation's capital insofar as they represent not advancement of sound
policy principles but rather a seriously flawed process by which
federal government ``favors'' are distributed in a means which assures
everyone gets a little something if they vote to give enough other
districts a little something too. This is not the procedure by which
Congress should be deciding matters of federal land disposition and
acquisition. In fact, there appears to be no Constitutional authority
for most of what
HR 4570 proposes to do.
Particularly frustrating is that in my attempt to return authority to
the State of Texas for a water project located in the 14th District, I
introduced
HR 2161, The Palmetto Bend Title Transfer Project. Return of
such authority comports with my Constitutional notion that local
control is preferred to unlimited federal authority to dictate from
Washington, the means by which a water project in Edna, Texas will be
managed. I understand that certain Members of Congress may disagree
with the notion of the proper and limited role of the federal
government. The point here, however, is that the ``political process''
embracing the so-called ``high virtue of compromise'' means that in
order for one to vote for less federal authority one must, at the same
time, in this bill, vote for more. Political schizophrenia was never
more rampant. One would have to vote to authorize the transfer of
377,000 acres of public land in Utah to the federal government (at
taxpayer expense of $50 million for Utah's public schools) in order to
return Lake Texana to the State of Texas.Two unrelated issues; two
opposite philosophies as to the proper role of the federal government--
a policy at odds with itself (unless, of course, compromise is one's
ultimate end).
HR 2161 merely facilitates the early payment of the construction
costs (discounted, of course, by the amount of interest no longer due
as a consequence of early payment) and transfers title of the Palmetto
Bend Project to the Texas state authorities. Both the LNRA and TWDB
concur that an early buy-out and title transfer is extremely beneficial
to the economical and operational well-being of the project as well as
the Lake Texana water users. The Texas Legislature and Governor George
W. Bush have both formally supported the early payment and title
transfer. In fact, even the residents of Highland Lakes in Travis
County who initially expressed a concern as to the effects of the title
transfer on the Colorado River Basin, came to support the legislation.
This bill will save Lake Texana water users as much as one million
dollars per year as well as providing an immediate infusion of $43
million dollars to the national treasury. Additionally, all liability
associated with this water project are, under my legislation, assumed
by the state of Texas thus further relieving the financial burden of
the federal government.
Texas has already demonstrated sound management of this resource.
Recreational use of the lake has been well-provided under Texas state
management to include provision of a marina, pavilion, playground, and
boating docks, all funded without federal money. Additionally, a
woodland bird sanctuary and wildlife viewing area will also be
established upon transfer with the assistance of the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department and several environmental organizations.
Members of Congress must not be put in the position of having to
support a massive federal land grab to secure for the residents of
Texas more local control over their water supply. For these reasons,
while I remain committed to the return of Lake Texana to Texas State
authorities, I must reluctantly and necessarily oppose
HR 4570.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill and
in particular to Section Nine which seeks to reduce hazardous fuels in
our national forests. While I oppose many provisions in this bill, I am
particularly concerned with the process by which this legislation has
made its way to the floor. Most of the provisions have circumvented
Committee consideration and some have never even been considered by the
relevant Subcommittee. There is a reason why there is a detailed
procedure for the consideration of legislation in the House--a
procedure that I strongly support--and I am very dismayed that
H.R.
4570 was not developed in this way. As many of my colleagues are aware,
I have been very active in reforming management policies in our
National Forests. Until his point, the dialogue on this issue between
various interested parties within Congress has been very productive.
However, the provisions pertaining to hazardous fuels reduction in this
bill are a step backwards in improving the management of our National
Forests. Section Nine authorizes the Forest Service to combine
commercial timber sales with forest stewardship contracting. Further,
it establishes an off-budget account that while initially funded by
transferring money from the hazardous fuels reduction program, is
regenerated through timber receipts from these sales.
As a fiscal conservative, I cannot support the connection of these
contracts. Providing offsets for timber purchasers to do stewardship
work in connection with a timber sale may have the result of paying
timber purchasers to take our natural resources. No Member with any
fiscal sense should support such a policy.
While this practice may work in private forestry, it is not something
I can support on our federal lands. If private contracting is the most
effective and cost-efficient option for performing stewardship
contracting, it should be used, but separate to a commercial timber
sale. There is no reason that these two services need to be connected
in a contract.
In addition, since I already have concerns about existing off-budget
accounts maintained by the Forest Service, I cannot support the
establishment of another one. Everyone can agree on the fact that the
Forest Service has fiscal accountability problems. Allowing them to use
more money without Congressional oversight is completely irresponsible.
Since I know that there are many good and important provisions in
this bill, I am sorry that I cannot support it. However, my concerns
with other provisions are serious enough to warrant my overall
opposition. It is my hope that in the future this sort of process for
developing legislation will be avoided and real progress can be made.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to
ten percent of the Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act of 1998.
This massive 481 page document that rolls almost 100 bills into one
package is ninety percent perfect. It makes needed technical
corrections to the 1996 Omnibus National Parks Act, makes important
adjustments to park boundaries, designates desirable land as heritage
and historic areas, and reauthorizes the Historic Preservation Fund.
The bill even establishes the transcontinental American Discovery Trail
which ends in Cape Henlopen State Park in my State of Delaware.
However, ten percent of this bill needs to be separated out and
addressed on an individual basis.
That ten percent includes some of the following measures:
Opens areas proposed or being managed as wilderness to possible
development, including the Everglades National Park which Congress has
spent millions of dollars to restore;
Hands over title and operation of some western water projects to
private interests without requiring them to pay full value for the
project. This year, the House passed the Salton Sea Reclamation Act
with a price tax of almost one-third of the Bureau of Reclamation's
annual budget. There is a long list of other reclamation projects
seeking funding. Why then would we want to sell existing projects at
less than their fair market value? it is not fiscally responsible
especially in a year where the President wants to spend the Social
Security Surplus on ``emergency'' spending;
Waives environmental review procedures for a proposed road that cuts
through one of the richest wetlands on the Pacific Coast of North
America, as well as a migratory bird nesting area, and salmon spawning
grounds. The value of this road may well outweigh these environmental
concerns, but we should not blindly authorize the road easement without
stopping to study its full environmental impact and plotting a course
that minimizes the environmental harm. That is simply poor management.
Ninety percent of this bill could have been one of the shining stars
in the 105th Congress' environmental record. Instead, due to the
controversial ten percent it will either die in this chamber, never be
considered in the Senate, or be vetoed at the President's desk. We have
precious few days left in the legislative session and many of us need
to return to our districts and debate serious national issues with
political opponents. Let us not be the only institution to pass an
unsignable law that has
[[Page
H9748]]
not been thoroughly examined by the committee process, and ten percent
of which bypasses or degrades the world-class environmental protections
we have established in this country.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Omnibus
National Parks and Public Lands Act. In particular, I would like to
address one portion of the act regarding Cumberland Island National
Seashore in my district.
Cumberland Island National Seashore is governed largely by two
establishing acts. The first, in 1972, created the seashore. The
second, the 1982, established a large wilderness area on the island.
Unfortunately, this act was assembled hastily and before the National
Park Service's wilderness suitability study was completed. The
unfortunate result was that the wilderness designation was placed on
top of a number of important historic assets, essentially locking them
away and seriously jeopardizing their existence. While the listing of
these structures, districts, and sites on the National Register of
Historic Places represents the Federal Government's obligation to
protect them, their inclusion within the wilderness in 1982 seriously
undermines that effort. Not only does it impede public access to these
treasures, it presents significant obstacles to their preservation.
These concerns were recognized and noted to Congress in writing at the
time by both the President and the Department of Interior, but they
were not corrected.
Mr. Chairman, Cumberland Island is a beautiful and unique island. The
diversity of its resources is one of its greatest strengths. My
intention in introducing this legislation is to recognize the value of
this diversity and protect it. I believe it is indeed possible--and
imperative in this case--to protect both the natural and historic
assets. They do not have to be mutually exclusive goals.
This bill takes three basic steps to achieve this balance. First, it
removes the wilderness or potential wilderness label from structures
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This provision will
lift restrictions on the Park Service as to the steps they can take to
preserve them. It also removes the fundamental conflict of mandates on
how these structures are to be treated: whether they are to be
preserved according to the Historic Preservation Act of allowed to
``revert to their natural state'' consistent with the Wilderness Act.
The bill also seeks to provide public access to these sites. Because
they are encased in wilderness, the only way for the public to visit
them is by making a 15 to 30 mile round trip hike. Obviously, only very
healthy backpackers can ever see and learn from these sites. A two-
hundred year old road (which itself has been designated as a national
historic asset), known as the ``Main Road'' or ``Grand Avenue'' runs
from the south end of the island up to many of these historic sites
within the wilderness. Our bill allows this road to be used in some
manner which does not have an undue negative impact on the wilderness
so that the park's visitors can see, study, and enjoy these sites.
Unfortunately, under the present circumstances, few visitors even
realize all that exists on the island, let alone the events that
enhance their historic significance. Cumberland's history is as rich as
Georgia's. Off its shore, pirates once loomed and British and Spanish
warships fought. Soldiers were stationed there in the War of 1812.
Revolutionary War hero Nathaniel Greene and his remarkable wife Katie
Littlefield Greene farmed and planted there. Their Cumberland Island
timber business supplied the wood for ``Old Ironsides.'' Thomas
Carnegie built mansions on the Island and once had over 300 servants
there. On the north end of the island is a historic settlement called
Half Moon Bluff founded by newly emancipated slaves. This was one of
the first free Black settlements in America and one of the few which
embodies and represents their transition from slavery to freedom and
landownership. In all, there are nine Cumberland island sites and
districts and many structures on the National Register of Historic
Places. Today many of their remnants are gone, and the rest are
decaying.
The third component of the legislation authorizes the restoration of
the beautiful historic Plum Orchard mansion which has dangerously
deteriorated. This house was gifted to the Federal Government on the
condition that it be maintained and enjoyed by the public. I am sorry
to say that this trust has been betrayed. W
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
OMNIBUS NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS ACT OF 1998
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in House section
OMNIBUS NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS ACT OF 1998
(House of Representatives - October 07, 1998)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H9741-H9870]
{time} 1230
OMNIBUS NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS ACT OF 1998
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 573 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 573
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of the
rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration
of the bill (
H.R. 4570) to provide for certain boundary
adjustments and conveyances involving public lands, to
establish and improve the management of certain heritage
areas, historic areas, National Parks, wild and scenic
rivers, and national trails, to protect communities by
reducing hazardous fuels levels on public lands, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Resources. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and shall
be considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall be in
order except those specified in section 2 of this resolution.
Each amendment may be offered only in the order specified,
may be offered only by a Member specified or his designee,
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time
specified equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the
House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order
against the first amendment specified in section 2 are
waived. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1)
postpone until a time during further consideration in the
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows
another electronic vote without intervening business,
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the
first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with our without
instructions.
Sec. 2. The amendments described in the first section of
this resolution are as follows:
(1) the amendments by Representative Hansen of Utah printed
in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause
6 of rule XXIII, which shall be debatable for twenty minutes;
and
(2) an amendment by Representative Miller of California if
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII on October 5,
1998, which shall be debatable for one hour.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. McInnis) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, during
the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purposes of debate only.
Madam Speaker, the proposed rule is for a modified closed rule
providing for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources.
The rule provides that no amendment will be in order except, one, the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) printed in
the Congressional Record and numbered 1, which shall be debatable for a
period of 20 minutes; and two, the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Miller) if printed in the Congressional Record on
October 5th, 1998, which shall be debatable for 1 hour.
The rule provides that the two amendments listed above may be offered
only in the order specified, may be offered only by a Member specified,
or his designee, and shall be considered as read, shall be debatable
for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
The rule waives all points of order against the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
In addition, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the
Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce
votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions. This rule was voted out of the Committee on Rules
by a voice vote.
Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation, the Omnibus National Parks
and Public Lands Act of 1998, addresses a wide variety of important
national parks, wild and scenic rivers, heritage areas, national
forests, and many other public lands issues and concerns.
This bill includes new protections for national parks and heritage
and wilderness areas in 36 States throughout this Nation. There are
over 80 proposals from approximately 70 Members of the United States
Congress within this underlying legislation. This is critical
[[Page
H9742]]
legislation. This deals with our national parks. It is a good approach
to our national park needs.
As I stated earlier, Madam Speaker, this provides much protection and
many of the projects that are critical across the country for our
national park system.
Madam Speaker,
H.R. 4570 is a bipartisan effort. As I mentioned
earlier, Madam Speaker, we have a number of different congressional
districts who have projects contained within this bill, both Democrat
and Republican. This is a bipartisan bill. It is an effort to get a
number of very important pieces of legislation passed because,
obviously, we are in the final few days of this session.
Madam Speaker, some groups have expressed concern with a few sections
included in 4570. Consistent with the bipartisan spirit in which this
bill was drafted, compromise language has been worked out for many of
these sections, including major changes to the San Rafael section, the
NEPA parity provision, Chugach, Cumberland Island, hazardous fuels
reduction, the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Canyon Ferry Reservoir,
Paoli Battlefield, Tuskegee Airmen, and the Emigrant Wilderness
provisions. Other controversial sections are also deleted by the
manager's amendment.
The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), chairman of the Subcommittee on
National Parks and Public Lands of the Committee on Resources, has made
significant efforts and he has made significant concessions to the
groups that have expressed concerns with the provisions of this bill.
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this bill includes over 80
proposals from about 70 Members of Congress contained within the
legislation. I am one of those 70 Members with provisions in this bill.
Title 13 of the Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act of 1998
proposes a transfer of the title to the facilities of the Pine River
Irrigation Project from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to the Pine
River Irrigation District.
My piece of this bill is an excellent example of how we, the United
States Congress, can govern in a better way, a way that involves
communities and local and State government, a way that empowers the
people that we represent.
In response to local initiative, and in my opinion demonstrating one
of the best examples of the so-called ``New West'' model of cooperation
to achieve local control of public resources, a proposal to transfer
title to the Pine River Irrigation Project was worked out.
I believe this type of action, shifting Federal control of
appropriate projects to local communities, and doing so only after
significant commitment by interested government agencies and extensive
input from the public impacted by the proposal, will serve as the model
for the future efforts of this nature.
Madam Speaker, this bill contains too many other examples of good
governance and good public lands policies to discuss in detail. I
encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, this is a modified closed rule. It allows for the
consideration of the National Parks and Public Lands Act of 1998. As my
colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) has described,
this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Resources.
The rule permits the manager's amendment. The Committee on Resources
ranking minority member chose not to offer an amendment. No other floor
amendments can be offered. I understand the need for cutting corners at
the end of the session in order to move legislation before adjournment,
but that is not a good enough excuse for the bill before us today. The
bill contains more than 100 provisions affecting specific parks,
monuments, landmarks, trails, and heritage areas.
Some of these provisions were originally introduced as freestanding
bills, and have partially gone through the normal Congressional
process, including hearings and reporting by the Committee on
Resources. However, other provisions have not. In fact, some sections
have only seen the light of day in the subcommittee amendment which was
made available yesterday for the first time. Some of these provisions
are very controversial, and would never have survived if they had been
subject to an open committee process.
There is no committee report for this bill, there have been no
hearings, no Congressional Budget Office cost estimate, no Federal
mandate statement, no constitutional authority statement. What is the
point of having a committee process if we are going to bypass it on a
regular basis?
The bill is strongly opposed by a coalition of conservation and
environmental groups. The administration would veto the bill if enacted
in its present form. Unfortunately, the rule will not permit Members to
offer amendments to improve the bill. Madam Speaker, Members deserve
the opportunity to debate and amend the bill. Unfortunately, this does
not happen at the committee level, and this rule will not permit it on
the House floor.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, first I should mention that in Ohio we establish the
American Discovery Trail, an important aspect of this bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on
Resources, who I think is a good leader on this bill and somebody who
understands the details of this bill.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, this is a good rule that should
be adopted.
First of all, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Hansen). He has done an excellent job. In fact, he has done more
than I would have done in the realm of trying to become reality in the
sense of compromise with all walks, all thoughts, and all
understanding. He has done an excellent job.
This is a pro-environment, pro-park, pro-history preservation bill
that will improve our national parks, wild and scenic rivers, heritage
areas, national forests, and many other public lands. Most of the
sections of this bill have gone through individual hearings and
followed the legislative process on freestanding bills.
Sixty-seven Members of this Congress from both parties have worked on
separate pieces of legislation in this bill. We have worked closely
with the Members on the important projects, Members of the Republican
side and Democrat side. This bill affects 36 different States, the
District of Columbia, and will benefit millions of people.
I will not list all the projects of this bill, the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Hansen) will speak about that in the general debate. Let me
say, though, this bill is a delicate balance, a very delicate balance.
There will be some Members who believe we have spent too much time on
the parks, some who believe we have not spent enough. I think it is a
good investment.
There are those who are going to make the usual accusations we are
not protecting the environment enough, but this bill creates new
opportunities for recreation, for protection of our wildlife, and for
improving the quality of life of Americans. This bill deserves the
support of every Member of this House.
May I say, Madam Speaker, that for those who may think about voting
against this bill or this rule, I would suggest respectfully, because I
have worked with each Member who has come to me, it is going to be very
difficult in the future to listen to someone sincerely when they do not
support their own legislation, or when they suggest that ``I want to
have mine, but no one else gets theirs.''
I suggest that those things that are in Ohio, those things that are
in Pennsylvania and California, Mississippi, all those other States,
those Members had better think very carefully about this great bill.
As far as the administration threatening to veto it, I have never for
the life of me understood why we have to listen to the administration
with regards to administration saying they
[[Page
H9743]]
are going to veto it. We are supposed to be the governing body for the
people. If he wants to veto a parks bill, let the President veto it. I
have no objection to that, if he wishes to do so. That is our form of
government.
But I have listened day after day to this President threatening
vetoes. I am saying, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves if we listen
just to the President. Under our Constitution, we are the House of the
people. It is our decision. If we want to vote this bill down, fine,
but do not vote it down because in fact he threatens a veto. If Members
want a king, they can have a king. I suggest the President would make a
very poor king.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Miller), the former chairman and now the ranking
member of the Committee on Resources.
Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Madam Speaker, this rule is adequate for this purpose. It does
provide for an amendment. Obviously, the problem is that this bill
cannot be amended in such a fashion to make it a better bill. We have
declined to offer an amendment. We think the bill should be defeated.
It should be defeated because it is contrary to the procedures of this
House. It is contrary to sound environmental policy. It has many, many
bad provisions in it.
It also has some very good provisions in it. Unfortunately, those
good provisions are being used as bait. They are being used to try to
enable some bad things to happen in this legislation, and to provide
camouflage for the underlying provisions in this bill that are very bad
policy.
That is why the administration has said it will recommend a veto of
this legislation, should it pass. The reason Members ought to listen to
this recommendation is so we do not go through this charade and then
end up with nothing.
The fact of the matter is there are many, many portions of this bill
sponsored by Members on both sides of the aisle that are
noncontroversial, that have bipartisan support, and that can be dealt
with and passed out of the House almost immediately on unanimous
consent. We can deal with those pieces of legislation.
{time} 1245
There are others that have had no hearings that we know very little
about, or are so controversial that they simply drag the whole package
down.
So Members can make a decision. They can vote ``no'' on this. Then we
can concentrate on passing legislation that will be without
controversy, that will address the needs of many, many Members, or they
can continue the charade that somehow this bill is going to pass, when
many of the Senators who are responsible for the jurisdiction of this
bill have indicated that the Senate will not give consideration to it.
Unfortunately, the Senate has passed some noncontroversial portions
of this bill and sent them off to the President. So the constituency
for this bill is declining, and the controversy is increasing. That
does not sound like a formula for success at the end of the session.
The fact of the matter is we have had all of this year in which many
of the provisions of this bill could have been brought before us and
then we could have dealt with them. But at the end of the session, this
is a veto. It is unacceptable. It is bad policy, and I would urge all
Members to vote against it and understand that not only the
administration, but all major environmental groups oppose this
legislation.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I think we need to lay out very clearly here,
especially in light of the criticism from the gentleman from California
(Mr. Miller) about the process that we are following. The gentleman
from California is quick to step up to the plate and criticize this
bill. But the gentleman from California has not been very quick to step
up to the plate and offer a substitute. Offer something better.
It is very easy to stand on this House floor and criticize the
Republicans and criticize the Democrats who have worked to put this
bill together. But I think that that criticism loses some of its
credibility when one who steps up has the opportunity under the rule,
has the opportunity under the rule to offer a substitute to put in
place of this a better bill, stands up and criticizes us. I think this
criticism would be much better received had they had a substitute on
that side.
I would add that that is not a Democrat or Republican kind of bill.
This is a bipartisan bill. So, we have a few Members on the Democratic
side criticizing this thing. But still, out of fairness, the Republican
leadership out of fairness insisted that these Democrats who are
objecting to this bill have an opportunity, out of fairness, have an
opportunity to offer their own proposal.
They declined to do that. Why? Because they do not want any
criticism. It is much easier to criticize somebody than offer a
substitute or come up with a good alternative. And that is the exact
route they are traveling, and in my opinion that route comes to a dead
end.
Madam Speaker, this is a good bill, a good rule; it is a fair bill,
and a fair rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall)
for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. It is only at the
end of the session that we will probably ever see rules like this in
which there is simply no opportunity for the body to work its will on
what constitutes almost 100 different land use and park measures in one
bill.
Some of these have been passed and are noncontroversial and have
received deliberation of the Committee on Resources and the
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands. But many of these
provisions, of course, have not been considered or debated on the House
floor on their merits. We are forced to swallow whole in this case
almost a hundred different modifications to various land use policy.
Of course, it is easy enough to say that there is an alliance here
between Members that have some provision in this bill, and that they
are basically being force-fed 99 other bills along with the one
provision that they want to see enacted into law. But this is not the
way to do business in terms of park and public land policy.
If these issues had been vetted, if they had been amended, if they
had been debated on their merits, but there is no opportunity here
today to in fact amend or to extract these specific provisions from
this bill and move on in a deliberate way with the measures that are
before us. There is simply no way to do it.
This is sort of a sorry excuse. I think the committee has worked very
hard over the last 2 years in having hearings. I know I've sat through
my share of such hearings. I am a little surprised that at the end of
the session now they bring forth this type of bill, when there is not
consensus on it, when all the major conservation and environmental
groups are against it and numerous proposals of controversy bad policy
and no hearings on the topic.
It is bad policy. It is a bad rule. This is not providing the ability
of the body to work its will. This is simply a slam dunk of 100
different land use decisions that frankly repeal long-standing
wilderness designations, that provide for roads, provide for other
types of activities, and it is being force-fed to the Members as if
they have to accept it in order to gain some reasonable changes in
terms of public lands and parks bills that they want. The veiled threat
and policy is inherent in this approach.
Quite frankly, I think the Congress has rightfully reserved to itself
some of the responsibility to work on parks and public lands bills. But
this type of action, I think, is the type of action that will, in fact,
argue for changing that particular responsibility and conveying this
responsibilty to the administration, because I think it is
irresponsible to act on a measure of this nature, of this magnitude, in
this rule.
Madam Speaker, this is simply a slam-dunk rule that is going to not
provide for deliberation or consideration. It is an attempt to push
through this body measures that cannot survive on their own merit on an
up-or-down vote, and they are shoved into this measure.
[[Page
H9744]]
Someone talks about it being ``park pork.'' It is more that that.
Part of this pork sausage is rancid meat that is into this omnibus park
pork sausage. As Bismarck said, those that like laws and sausages
should never watch either being made. I would hope we would move away
from such an approach. It is not so much sausage, but that we have
rancid meat in here that destroys our parks and wilderness system, that
are an affront to the American people, and that is why I urge a ``no''
vote on this rule and on this bill.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman's are very eloquent comments, but where
is the meat? The gentleman has an opportunity to offer a substitute. If
he thinks this is a rotten bill, he should come up with a better car.
We are not prohibiting. Our rule is very specific. Let me make it
clear that this rule allows the opposition to come up with a substitute
through the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). He is free to do
that.
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield? I would be happy
to respond.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I would be happy to yield in a moment, if
the gentleman would sit around and listen to the debate.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla).
(Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and
of this legislation that is a result of a lot of hard work between both
sides on this committee. The gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and
the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) have done an outstanding job
in moving this legislation forward.
This bill contains, as the chairman alluded to earlier, many stories
out in the heartland that will result in positive changes in
communities affecting National Parks all over the country. It is a good
bipartisan bill, and every Member of Congress that is affected by this
bill has a good story to tell about the changes that would result when
this legislation passes.
I will just highlight briefly what will happen in my congressional
district. There is a piece of land that the owners would like to donate
to the Fort Davis National Historic Site. And there are other bills as
well that have other local significance, and these changes should not
fall prey to partisan politics.
In my part of the country, the bill would permit a simple 16-acre
expansion of the Fort Davis historical site. This legislation is
necessary because the original legislation limited the historic site to
460 acres.
Fort Davis is located in the heart of west Texas, a wonderful part of
the country nestled in an area that is very scenic in its own rough and
rugged way. I am proud to represent this area, and I would like to
invite my colleagues to visit this area any time they are passing
through my State.
That entire area of the State is the most popular tourist attraction
in the State of Texas now. The fort was a key post in the defense of
west Texas and thus played a major role in this region's history. From
1854 to 1891, troops at the post guarded immigrants, freighters, and
stage coaches on the San Antonio-El Paso Road. Fort Davis is the best
remaining example in the Southwest of the typical post-Civil War
frontier fort. The post has extensive surviving structures and ruins.
The particular parcel of land that would be added is known as
Sleeping Lion Mountain. This land overlooks the park's historic
landmarks. It is adjacent to the park's southern boundary, and I
believe that the inclusion of this tract of land into the site would
ensure the visual and historic integrity for this State and national
treasure.
The land is slated to be donated to the National Park Service by the
Conservation Fund. The land has been purchased by the Conservation
Fund. They secured the funds from several private foundations to
purchase this land. The purchase of the land was completed in April,
and they are simply waiting for us to act. In fact, they have been
waiting for a long time for us to act.
Madam Speaker, this park expansion has the blessing of the local
community and is supported by the Texas Historical Commission. This is
a simple piece of legislation that allows for a minor park expansion.
And reflecting on the story that I just told, Madam Speaker, there are
countless others around the country that could be told about a positive
change in their community and their national parks that could result in
something good for the communities that these communities are crying
out for.
Madam Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen)
and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), as well as the
gentleman from New York (Chairman Solomon), my friend who is sitting to
my right, and also the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) who has
worked hard on this rule and on this legislation.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento), out of fairness, for him to respond.
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
McInnis), and I will certainly also get time from the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hall). But this rule does not even provide the opportunity
for 5 minutes debate for each of the measures in the bill. I mean, that
is its sort of stand-on-your-head-type logic, because it says we can
offer a substitute, but this rule waives all points of order against
the substitute offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), but
does not waive them for the substitute if offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Miller). And we did not know what the substitute was
going to be, and we were supposed to have the amendment in by Monday.
It is an unequal playing field and a bad bill and a bad rule.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think the gentleman from Minnesota has brought up a couple of valid
points. I am not sure that the gentleman is aware of the historical
perspective up in the Committee on Rules. Waivers were offered, and on
top of that, we gave the other side an hour, 1 hour, of debate on the
substitute. I am baffled by the fact that there is such strong
criticism coming about this bill, yet no one who criticizes has decided
to step forward with a better car.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I would just point out that I think it is
an impossible process when we have nearly a hundred measures in here
that are important. The measure that the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla) mentioned is important, and I do not have any objections to
it. But this does not provide 5 minutes of debate, not even a minute of
debate for each measure in the bill. I think these measures deserve
attention.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the
gentleman, that is exactly the point. It is a very complicated bill. It
has lots of different projects in it. We are not going to get everybody
in here happy about this all the time. But this is probably, this is
clearly the most critical bill dealing in helping our national parks we
have had this session.
We cannot put together the perfect model because we have too many
players and projects. This is the best we are going to get. And if the
gentleman could have done better, he should have introduced it.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert).
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but in
opposition to the bill. It is a perfectly fine rule for a fatally
flawed bill.
I had hoped not to be standing here today. I had hoped the Committee
on Resources would pull together a noncontroversial bill, one that
would be signable, that actually had a chance to become law. That
result was encouraged before the bill was even introduced and there was
an offer to negotiate.
Indeed, discussions did take place for 4 days last week. But the
Committee on Resources opened those negotiations by listing the items
that they considered nonnegotiable, and they were some of the worst
provisions of
[[Page
H9745]]
the bill. That is not a very promising way to start negotiations.
But we still tried to work out issues concerning forestry, Bureau of
Reclamation projects, and the rules governing wilderness areas.
Unfortunately, none of these issues was fully resolved. We did reach a
compromise on one provision, procedures for a NEPA waiver for certain
forests.
In short, the bill and the manager's amendment do not address my
concerns or the concerns of so many of my colleagues. If my colleagues
have heard otherwise, they have been misled.
So, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, but oppose the bill; a
bill that could have been negotiated, a bill that could have been
noncontroversial, a bill that could have helped Americans all around
the country, but a bill that instead is opposed by every environmental
group.
It is opposed by the Taxpayers for Common Sense, it is opposed by the
administration, it is a bill that is going nowhere, regardless of what
happens here today. The majority of this bill could have been passed on
the suspension calendar if the temptation had been resisted to deal
with controversial matters that have never been the subject of full and
open hearings.
I have no objection to the rule. It is a tribute to my friend and
good chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon). But I urge
defeat of the bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
{time} 1300
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to
both the rule and to
H.R. 4570. I say reluctant because this is likely
the last parks bill to be considered by the House in this Congress, and
I would have liked it to be bipartisan.
Madam Speaker, this bill contains laudable provisions which should be
enacted into law. The bill contains many provisions supported today by
both sides of the aisle, and many more provisions, I believe, that
could have been negotiated into forms both sides could have supported.
Over the past several weeks I have had discussions with several Members
concerning their sections of this bill, and I was prepared to work with
them and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) to craft a bill that
could have passed the House today. Such a bill could stand a good
chance of being enacted into law.
Madam Speaker, among the provisions which I believe there is
bipartisan support for are the expansion of the Fort Davis National
Historic Site in Texas, expansion of the Arches National Park in Utah,
establishment of the Thomas Cole National Historic Site in New York,
the amendments to the boundaries of the Abraham Lincoln Birth Place
National Historic Site in Kentucky, the Automobile National Heritage
Area in Michigan and Indiana, and the land exchanges involving Yosemite
National Park and the Cape Cod National Seashore.
Among the provisions I believe, Madam Speaker, that could have been
negotiated to acceptable resolutions are the Cumberland Island National
Seashore in Georgia and the San Rafael Swell National Conservation Area
in Utah.
With all due respect to my dear friend and colleagues, the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), even
with the changes contained in today's amendment, there are many
provisions which I cannot support in good conscience. Among those are
the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land, the requirements for congressional
approval of national monuments, and changes in environmental laws which
go farther than I believe are beneficial to our public resources.
Madam Speaker, these are honest differences on how best to manage our
public parks, lands and forests. Based on my subcommittee work with the
gentleman from Utah over the past 2 years, I think many of these
differences could have worked out. There are others, however, that,
given the number of them and basic philosophical differences between
the Members, we probably could not have resolved. I believe we should
have saved the provisions for which there is strong support by pulling
others from this bill. Perhaps this is unacceptable from the majority's
perspective, but as we move through these last days of this Congress, I
had hoped that we could have focused on moving to enactment as many
meritorious bills as possible. With more compromise from the parties
involved, we could have done this.
Madam Speaker, as I noted earlier, I would have preferred to be
speaking in support of this legislation, but given the substantive
differences, I feel compelled to recommend to my colleagues to vote
against this rule as well as the bill.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time. I was not going to speak on this measure, but I have been
sitting here listening patiently to the debate and I just am surprised
at the opposition to the rule from the Democrat side.
I am looking at a chart here of all of the individual bills that are
incorporated into this.
H.R. 3047 passed the House,
H.R. 799 on the
Union Calendar, and another on the Union Calendar. Here are four more
that have passed the House. We can go right down the line here. Most of
this legislation has already been acted on by this body, and passed
either unanimously or by overwhelming vote. Not even one of these bills
was controversial.
I would like to say to the other side that before we took over
control of the House 4 years ago, we Republicans were treated quite
badly. We had ranking members of full committees that were not given
the opportunity to offer a substitute. We have changed the protocol in
the Committee on Rules and we never, ever deny the minority party the
right to offer their alternative--not through a motion to recommit or
not through defeating the previous question, but through a substitute.
And they are given ample time.
We offered that to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
I specifically said, and Members can go back upstairs and read the
record, that if the gentleman from California needed waivers, we would
do it. All he needed to do was to print his bill, have it printed in
the Record so it is there for Members to see in the morning. That is
really bending over backwards. We have done everything we can to be
fair, and then I see people stand up here opposing the rule. I just do
not understand it.
Ronald Reagan taught me the value of compromise years ago, and it was
hard to teach me, because as my colleagues saw from yesterday's tribute
on the floor, I am very opinionated. But when we do compromise, it
feels like we are compromising our principles. But that is what this
body is all about. We have to work together. We should be doing that.
I want to assure everybody, all the conservatives in this House, that
I have scoured the bill. There is nothing in the bill that intrudes on,
that infringes on States' rights or the individual rights of local
governments, whether they be towns or villages or cities or counties.
This bill does not do that. So from that point of view, it is a good
bill.
It is a good bill from some of the environmentalists' point of view.
I saw my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), who I
appreciate is going to vote for the rule, but he is going to oppose the
bill. For the Hudson Valley there is very important legislation in the
bill that my good friend the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Jim Hansen), the
subcommittee chairman, has provided.
I brought to the floor a bill not too long ago, and it passed the
House. During debate I brought in the paintings of Frederick Church and
Thomas Cole, which are just outstanding, which pictorialize the entire
northeast, the Hudson Valley, the Adirondack and Catskill Mountains.
That legislation is in here. And every environmentalist that I know in
the mid Hudson Valley supports this legislation. So I just do not know
where all the opposition is coming from.
I think Members should vote for the rule and certainly they should
support the bill. It is a good bill, and I thank
[[Page
H9746]]
the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to say that we do not argue with the fact that there are some
very good provisions in this bill, but the fact is it is my
understanding that over half of the provisions that are in this bill
have never been reported from the committee, and there is over two
dozen provisions that have never, ever had a hearing.
So the people on the committee and the people on the floor of the
House, we do not know what is in this bill and we just want a chance to
take a look at it, debate it, and we cannot do it today with this very
restrictive rule.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Vento).
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. Listening to the appeal of our distinguished friend and chairman
of the Committee on Rules, I would just point out that the history of
Mo Udall and, for that matter, the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller), who most recently led this committee and now has passed
the torch on to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Don Young), was to, in
fact, have open rules on most of these issues.
As has been indicated here, with a hundred measures on this bill, no
opportunity to amend them, some that have not had hearings, some
considerable number, some that are very controversial, if it were only
the matter of the Thomas Cole measure, that has passed this House and
is awaiting action in the Senate, that were included in this bill as a
way to try to optimize the opportunity to enact some of these measures
into law, I think most of us would be trying to work to accomplish
that. It is a difficult task in this format. But given the way that
this has been constructed, and the controversy over many of these
issues, I think it is unreasonable to expect us to accept this type of
substitute.
I think that in order to achieve that, it is not something we are
going to do a slam dunk passage here in the House and score some
points. It is not going to accomplish what is being sought. I think it
has a tendency to polarize. There just is not enough time, given the
rule and where we are at on the floor today, to go through and expect
to get hours and hours of debate on this. And, logically, the gentleman
did not provide that, given the circumstance we are in this week
attempting to end this session.
So I think this is a step backward toward seeing the enactment of the
good provisions and mixing them up with the bad and hoping somehow
that, by rolling the dice here, that we will get to enact these
particular measures. This is not the way to do business. This is not
deliberative. This is not fair. I understand the pressure the Committee
on Rules and the body is under, but this is not a step forward, it is a
step backward.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado
yielding this time to me and the excellent remarks that he has made,
and let me just say a few things.
We have heard all this stuff, but let us get down to the facts on
this baby and what really happened. People are saying, oh, this is
going to be vetoed. We promise it will be vetoed. I want to hearken
back to 2 years ago. We stood here with a bill that had more titles in
it, more bills in it than we have today, and we heard exactly the same
thing: oh, this one will be vetoed.
How many of my colleagues were with me as we stood in the oval office
while the President put his John Henry on that and said, this is a
great way to do legislation. The President of the United States said
that. I do not know if I agree with him that it is a good way to do
legislation.
But now we hear these other arguments. It has all these things in it
that we have not had hearings on. We have not had time on these things.
Well, guess what? Most of these are so minuscule, so infinitesimal that
they amount to nothing. The bills in here that have got things of
substance in it we have had hearings on. We have had a lot of them on
the floor. And when we start looking at some of these others, they are
almost infinitesimal.
What is this rule about and this bill about? It is about compromise.
The whole thing is compromise. My staff, the staff of the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Don Young), the staff on the other side has worked
with others to try to compromise in some of these areas. I almost feel
bad that we have compromised so far on our side. I think we have given
away the store in some particular things.
But I would like to talk about some of those things on this term
compromise. It probably comes down to only two bills in this whole
shooting match that really bothers anybody, and this is probably the
biggest one, right here. It is called San Rafael Swell. This happens to
be an area that I doubt anybody in this room, other than me and maybe
one other, has ever seen, but my colleagues should go look at it. It is
one of the most beautiful geological things the Lord ever put on the
earth.
But as we look at that particular area, the people in Emery County
said someday we have to come to grips with this area. This is where
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid mixed it up with a few people. This
is where there were shootouts and there were mines. This is a very
interesting area. People who go in there are just enthralled with the
history of the area. So they came up with the San Rafael Swell. And the
Emery and Carbon County folks, all those good Democrats down there,
said this is what we will do. We will work out something with the
environmental community that will work. And so they did, and they gave
them about everything. Yet every environmentalist I have talked to said
we do not like the way they have it.
Look at this. This green area goes into wilderness under this bill.
This light green goes into primitive areas that are nonmotorized. So
what is the issue? We are giving them everything they asked for but one
thing, and that is called Sid's Mountain. Please look at this yellow
place right here. That is Sid's mountain. A very interesting place. But
15 years ago Fish and Wildlife and the State of Utah, and fish and
wildlife came from all over America, said this is the ideal place to
have the desert big horn sheep. We do not have a good herd anywhere. We
have some other places, but not anywhere in the west. So they started
the desert big horn sheep.
Guess what the problem is? They have to drink water, just like all
the rest of us do, and there is no water on that mountain. So they came
up with this original idea called guzzlers. For those who do not know
what a guzzler is, let me explain it. It is a large thing that works by
evaporation. And through the sun coming up and then it getting cold, it
evaporates, goes into a trough, and the big horn sheep get their water
there.
However, we all realize the 1964 wilderness bill says what? We cannot
have a mechanized thing in the wilderness. So we cannot have guzzlers.
So they cannot have the sheep. Well, a lot of people want to go in and
see them. There are some roads at the bottom of this, and a lot of
people want to see these sheep.
But when it gets down to this great big thing that we are all mad
about, it comes down to the idea of the San Rafael Swell and the desert
big horn sheep.
Now, we have talked to our environmental friends and asked them what
they have against the desert big horn sheep. That is the whole issue on
this rascal. The desert big horn sheep seems to be the whole thing that
may turn this bill one way or the other. And I am stale waiting for a
member of the Sierra Club or one of the others to stand up and say this
is what we have against the desert big horn sheep.
What it amounts to is the idea of wilderness. They have built their
whole thing on wilderness. They should build it on the term restrictive
areas. It means the same thing, but one is a romantic word and one is
another word.
Let me go through a few others. The Canyon Ferry Reservoir we
considered modification. The Tuskegee Historic Site we went on. The
water projects with the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) we went
on. The Nevada Airport, we worked that out. The
[[Page
H9747]]
things with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Don Young), we came up with
a provision on the Chugach area. The C Canal. The list goes on and on
of things we have agreed to, to make this an acceptable bill.
{time} 1315
I personally would urge the passage of this rule, and I would urge
the passage of this bill. This is a good piece of legislation. We have
played this game time after time. We will hear the same arguments every
time. The fact of the matter is the President signed it the last time,
and I would hope he would see the wisdom in signing it this time.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, moments ago,
HR 4570 was described as a
``delicate balance'' not to be disturbed by votes against either the
resolution or the rule. In fact, the primary justification presented
for passage of the bill was the ``brilliance'' with which a compromise
securing the necessary number of votes was ``engineered.'' Statements
such as these are an unfortunate commentary on the state of affairs in
the nation's capital insofar as they represent not advancement of sound
policy principles but rather a seriously flawed process by which
federal government ``favors'' are distributed in a means which assures
everyone gets a little something if they vote to give enough other
districts a little something too. This is not the procedure by which
Congress should be deciding matters of federal land disposition and
acquisition. In fact, there appears to be no Constitutional authority
for most of what
HR 4570 proposes to do.
Particularly frustrating is that in my attempt to return authority to
the State of Texas for a water project located in the 14th District, I
introduced
HR 2161, The Palmetto Bend Title Transfer Project. Return of
such authority comports with my Constitutional notion that local
control is preferred to unlimited federal authority to dictate from
Washington, the means by which a water project in Edna, Texas will be
managed. I understand that certain Members of Congress may disagree
with the notion of the proper and limited role of the federal
government. The point here, however, is that the ``political process''
embracing the so-called ``high virtue of compromise'' means that in
order for one to vote for less federal authority one must, at the same
time, in this bill, vote for more. Political schizophrenia was never
more rampant. One would have to vote to authorize the transfer of
377,000 acres of public land in Utah to the federal government (at
taxpayer expense of $50 million for Utah's public schools) in order to
return Lake Texana to the State of Texas.Two unrelated issues; two
opposite philosophies as to the proper role of the federal government--
a policy at odds with itself (unless, of course, compromise is one's
ultimate end).
HR 2161 merely facilitates the early payment of the construction
costs (discounted, of course, by the amount of interest no longer due
as a consequence of early payment) and transfers title of the Palmetto
Bend Project to the Texas state authorities. Both the LNRA and TWDB
concur that an early buy-out and title transfer is extremely beneficial
to the economical and operational well-being of the project as well as
the Lake Texana water users. The Texas Legislature and Governor George
W. Bush have both formally supported the early payment and title
transfer. In fact, even the residents of Highland Lakes in Travis
County who initially expressed a concern as to the effects of the title
transfer on the Colorado River Basin, came to support the legislation.
This bill will save Lake Texana water users as much as one million
dollars per year as well as providing an immediate infusion of $43
million dollars to the national treasury. Additionally, all liability
associated with this water project are, under my legislation, assumed
by the state of Texas thus further relieving the financial burden of
the federal government.
Texas has already demonstrated sound management of this resource.
Recreational use of the lake has been well-provided under Texas state
management to include provision of a marina, pavilion, playground, and
boating docks, all funded without federal money. Additionally, a
woodland bird sanctuary and wildlife viewing area will also be
established upon transfer with the assistance of the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department and several environmental organizations.
Members of Congress must not be put in the position of having to
support a massive federal land grab to secure for the residents of
Texas more local control over their water supply. For these reasons,
while I remain committed to the return of Lake Texana to Texas State
authorities, I must reluctantly and necessarily oppose
HR 4570.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill and
in particular to Section Nine which seeks to reduce hazardous fuels in
our national forests. While I oppose many provisions in this bill, I am
particularly concerned with the process by which this legislation has
made its way to the floor. Most of the provisions have circumvented
Committee consideration and some have never even been considered by the
relevant Subcommittee. There is a reason why there is a detailed
procedure for the consideration of legislation in the House--a
procedure that I strongly support--and I am very dismayed that
H.R.
4570 was not developed in this way. As many of my colleagues are aware,
I have been very active in reforming management policies in our
National Forests. Until his point, the dialogue on this issue between
various interested parties within Congress has been very productive.
However, the provisions pertaining to hazardous fuels reduction in this
bill are a step backwards in improving the management of our National
Forests. Section Nine authorizes the Forest Service to combine
commercial timber sales with forest stewardship contracting. Further,
it establishes an off-budget account that while initially funded by
transferring money from the hazardous fuels reduction program, is
regenerated through timber receipts from these sales.
As a fiscal conservative, I cannot support the connection of these
contracts. Providing offsets for timber purchasers to do stewardship
work in connection with a timber sale may have the result of paying
timber purchasers to take our natural resources. No Member with any
fiscal sense should support such a policy.
While this practice may work in private forestry, it is not something
I can support on our federal lands. If private contracting is the most
effective and cost-efficient option for performing stewardship
contracting, it should be used, but separate to a commercial timber
sale. There is no reason that these two services need to be connected
in a contract.
In addition, since I already have concerns about existing off-budget
accounts maintained by the Forest Service, I cannot support the
establishment of another one. Everyone can agree on the fact that the
Forest Service has fiscal accountability problems. Allowing them to use
more money without Congressional oversight is completely irresponsible.
Since I know that there are many good and important provisions in
this bill, I am sorry that I cannot support it. However, my concerns
with other provisions are serious enough to warrant my overall
opposition. It is my hope that in the future this sort of process for
developing legislation will be avoided and real progress can be made.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to
ten percent of the Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act of 1998.
This massive 481 page document that rolls almost 100 bills into one
package is ninety percent perfect. It makes needed technical
corrections to the 1996 Omnibus National Parks Act, makes important
adjustments to park boundaries, designates desirable land as heritage
and historic areas, and reauthorizes the Historic Preservation Fund.
The bill even establishes the transcontinental American Discovery Trail
which ends in Cape Henlopen State Park in my State of Delaware.
However, ten percent of this bill needs to be separated out and
addressed on an individual basis.
That ten percent includes some of the following measures:
Opens areas proposed or being managed as wilderness to possible
development, including the Everglades National Park which Congress has
spent millions of dollars to restore;
Hands over title and operation of some western water projects to
private interests without requiring them to pay full value for the
project. This year, the House passed the Salton Sea Reclamation Act
with a price tax of almost one-third of the Bureau of Reclamation's
annual budget. There is a long list of other reclamation projects
seeking funding. Why then would we want to sell existing projects at
less than their fair market value? it is not fiscally responsible
especially in a year where the President wants to spend the Social
Security Surplus on ``emergency'' spending;
Waives environmental review procedures for a proposed road that cuts
through one of the richest wetlands on the Pacific Coast of North
America, as well as a migratory bird nesting area, and salmon spawning
grounds. The value of this road may well outweigh these environmental
concerns, but we should not blindly authorize the road easement without
stopping to study its full environmental impact and plotting a course
that minimizes the environmental harm. That is simply poor management.
Ninety percent of this bill could have been one of the shining stars
in the 105th Congress' environmental record. Instead, due to the
controversial ten percent it will either die in this chamber, never be
considered in the Senate, or be vetoed at the President's desk. We have
precious few days left in the legislative session and many of us need
to return to our districts and debate serious national issues with
political opponents. Let us not be the only institution to pass an
unsignable law that has
[[Page
H9748]]
not been thoroughly examined by the committee process, and ten percent
of which bypasses or degrades the world-class environmental protections
we have established in this country.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Omnibus
National Parks and Public Lands Act. In particular, I would like to
address one portion of the act regarding Cumberland Island National
Seashore in my district.
Cumberland Island National Seashore is governed largely by two
establishing acts. The first, in 1972, created the seashore. The
second, the 1982, established a large wilderness area on the island.
Unfortunately, this act was assembled hastily and before the National
Park Service's wilderness suitability study was completed. The
unfortunate result was that the wilderness designation was placed on
top of a number of important historic assets, essentially locking them
away and seriously jeopardizing their existence. While the listing of
these structures, districts, and sites on the National Register of
Historic Places represents the Federal Government's obligation to
protect them, their inclusion within the wilderness in 1982 seriously
undermines that effort. Not only does it impede public access to these
treasures, it presents significant obstacles to their preservation.
These concerns were recognized and noted to Congress in writing at the
time by both the President and the Department of Interior, but they
were not corrected.
Mr. Chairman, Cumberland Island is a beautiful and unique island. The
diversity of its resources is one of its greatest strengths. My
intention in introducing this legislation is to recognize the value of
this diversity and protect it. I believe it is indeed possible--and
imperative in this case--to protect both the natural and historic
assets. They do not have to be mutually exclusive goals.
This bill takes three basic steps to achieve this balance. First, it
removes the wilderness or potential wilderness label from structures
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This provision will
lift restrictions on the Park Service as to the steps they can take to
preserve them. It also removes the fundamental conflict of mandates on
how these structures are to be treated: whether they are to be
preserved according to the Historic Preservation Act of allowed to
``revert to their natural state'' consistent with the Wilderness Act.
The bill also seeks to provide public access to these sites. Because
they are encased in wilderness, the only way for the public to visit
them is by making a 15 to 30 mile round trip hike. Obviously, only very
healthy backpackers can ever see and learn from these sites. A two-
hundred year old road (which itself has been designated as a national
historic asset), known as the ``Main Road'' or ``Grand Avenue'' runs
from the south end of the island up to many of these historic sites
within the wilderness. Our bill allows this road to be used in some
manner which does not have an undue negative impact on the wilderness
so that the park's visitors can see, study, and enjoy these sites.
Unfortunately, under the present circumstances, few visitors even
realize all that exists on the island, let alone the events that
enhance their historic significance. Cumberland's history is as rich as
Georgia's. Off its shore, pirates once loomed and British and Spanish
warships fought. Soldiers were stationed there in the War of 1812.
Revolutionary War hero Nathaniel Greene and his remarkable wife Katie
Littlefield Greene farmed and planted there. Their Cumberland Island
timber business supplied the wood for ``Old Ironsides.'' Thomas
Carnegie built mansions on the Island and once had over 300 servants
there. On the north end of the island is a historic settlement called
Half Moon Bluff founded by newly emancipated slaves. This was one of
the first free Black settlements in America and one of the few which
embodies and represents their transition from slavery to freedom and
landownership. In all, there are nine Cumberland island sites and
districts and many structures on the National Register of Historic
Places. Today many of their remnants are gone, and the rest are
decaying.
The third component of the legislation authorizes the restoration of
the beautiful historic Plum Orchard mansion which has dangerously
deteriorated. This house was gifted to the Federal Government on the
condition that it be maintained and enjoyed by the public. I am sorry
to say that
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
OMNIBUS NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS ACT OF 1998
(House of Representatives - October 07, 1998)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H9741-H9870]
{time} 1230
OMNIBUS NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS ACT OF 1998
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 573 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 573
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of the
rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration
of the bill (
H.R. 4570) to provide for certain boundary
adjustments and conveyances involving public lands, to
establish and improve the management of certain heritage
areas, historic areas, National Parks, wild and scenic
rivers, and national trails, to protect communities by
reducing hazardous fuels levels on public lands, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Resources. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and shall
be considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall be in
order except those specified in section 2 of this resolution.
Each amendment may be offered only in the order specified,
may be offered only by a Member specified or his designee,
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time
specified equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the
House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order
against the first amendment specified in section 2 are
waived. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1)
postpone until a time during further consideration in the
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows
another electronic vote without intervening business,
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the
first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with our without
instructions.
Sec. 2. The amendments described in the first section of
this resolution are as follows:
(1) the amendments by Representative Hansen of Utah printed
in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause
6 of rule XXIII, which shall be debatable for twenty minutes;
and
(2) an amendment by Representative Miller of California if
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII on October 5,
1998, which shall be debatable for one hour.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. McInnis) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, during
the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purposes of debate only.
Madam Speaker, the proposed rule is for a modified closed rule
providing for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources.
The rule provides that no amendment will be in order except, one, the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) printed in
the Congressional Record and numbered 1, which shall be debatable for a
period of 20 minutes; and two, the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Miller) if printed in the Congressional Record on
October 5th, 1998, which shall be debatable for 1 hour.
The rule provides that the two amendments listed above may be offered
only in the order specified, may be offered only by a Member specified,
or his designee, and shall be considered as read, shall be debatable
for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
The rule waives all points of order against the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
In addition, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the
Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce
votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions. This rule was voted out of the Committee on Rules
by a voice vote.
Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation, the Omnibus National Parks
and Public Lands Act of 1998, addresses a wide variety of important
national parks, wild and scenic rivers, heritage areas, national
forests, and many other public lands issues and concerns.
This bill includes new protections for national parks and heritage
and wilderness areas in 36 States throughout this Nation. There are
over 80 proposals from approximately 70 Members of the United States
Congress within this underlying legislation. This is critical
[[Page
H9742]]
legislation. This deals with our national parks. It is a good approach
to our national park needs.
As I stated earlier, Madam Speaker, this provides much protection and
many of the projects that are critical across the country for our
national park system.
Madam Speaker,
H.R. 4570 is a bipartisan effort. As I mentioned
earlier, Madam Speaker, we have a number of different congressional
districts who have projects contained within this bill, both Democrat
and Republican. This is a bipartisan bill. It is an effort to get a
number of very important pieces of legislation passed because,
obviously, we are in the final few days of this session.
Madam Speaker, some groups have expressed concern with a few sections
included in 4570. Consistent with the bipartisan spirit in which this
bill was drafted, compromise language has been worked out for many of
these sections, including major changes to the San Rafael section, the
NEPA parity provision, Chugach, Cumberland Island, hazardous fuels
reduction, the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Canyon Ferry Reservoir,
Paoli Battlefield, Tuskegee Airmen, and the Emigrant Wilderness
provisions. Other controversial sections are also deleted by the
manager's amendment.
The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), chairman of the Subcommittee on
National Parks and Public Lands of the Committee on Resources, has made
significant efforts and he has made significant concessions to the
groups that have expressed concerns with the provisions of this bill.
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this bill includes over 80
proposals from about 70 Members of Congress contained within the
legislation. I am one of those 70 Members with provisions in this bill.
Title 13 of the Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act of 1998
proposes a transfer of the title to the facilities of the Pine River
Irrigation Project from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to the Pine
River Irrigation District.
My piece of this bill is an excellent example of how we, the United
States Congress, can govern in a better way, a way that involves
communities and local and State government, a way that empowers the
people that we represent.
In response to local initiative, and in my opinion demonstrating one
of the best examples of the so-called ``New West'' model of cooperation
to achieve local control of public resources, a proposal to transfer
title to the Pine River Irrigation Project was worked out.
I believe this type of action, shifting Federal control of
appropriate projects to local communities, and doing so only after
significant commitment by interested government agencies and extensive
input from the public impacted by the proposal, will serve as the model
for the future efforts of this nature.
Madam Speaker, this bill contains too many other examples of good
governance and good public lands policies to discuss in detail. I
encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, this is a modified closed rule. It allows for the
consideration of the National Parks and Public Lands Act of 1998. As my
colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) has described,
this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Resources.
The rule permits the manager's amendment. The Committee on Resources
ranking minority member chose not to offer an amendment. No other floor
amendments can be offered. I understand the need for cutting corners at
the end of the session in order to move legislation before adjournment,
but that is not a good enough excuse for the bill before us today. The
bill contains more than 100 provisions affecting specific parks,
monuments, landmarks, trails, and heritage areas.
Some of these provisions were originally introduced as freestanding
bills, and have partially gone through the normal Congressional
process, including hearings and reporting by the Committee on
Resources. However, other provisions have not. In fact, some sections
have only seen the light of day in the subcommittee amendment which was
made available yesterday for the first time. Some of these provisions
are very controversial, and would never have survived if they had been
subject to an open committee process.
There is no committee report for this bill, there have been no
hearings, no Congressional Budget Office cost estimate, no Federal
mandate statement, no constitutional authority statement. What is the
point of having a committee process if we are going to bypass it on a
regular basis?
The bill is strongly opposed by a coalition of conservation and
environmental groups. The administration would veto the bill if enacted
in its present form. Unfortunately, the rule will not permit Members to
offer amendments to improve the bill. Madam Speaker, Members deserve
the opportunity to debate and amend the bill. Unfortunately, this does
not happen at the committee level, and this rule will not permit it on
the House floor.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, first I should mention that in Ohio we establish the
American Discovery Trail, an important aspect of this bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on
Resources, who I think is a good leader on this bill and somebody who
understands the details of this bill.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, this is a good rule that should
be adopted.
First of all, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Hansen). He has done an excellent job. In fact, he has done more
than I would have done in the realm of trying to become reality in the
sense of compromise with all walks, all thoughts, and all
understanding. He has done an excellent job.
This is a pro-environment, pro-park, pro-history preservation bill
that will improve our national parks, wild and scenic rivers, heritage
areas, national forests, and many other public lands. Most of the
sections of this bill have gone through individual hearings and
followed the legislative process on freestanding bills.
Sixty-seven Members of this Congress from both parties have worked on
separate pieces of legislation in this bill. We have worked closely
with the Members on the important projects, Members of the Republican
side and Democrat side. This bill affects 36 different States, the
District of Columbia, and will benefit millions of people.
I will not list all the projects of this bill, the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Hansen) will speak about that in the general debate. Let me
say, though, this bill is a delicate balance, a very delicate balance.
There will be some Members who believe we have spent too much time on
the parks, some who believe we have not spent enough. I think it is a
good investment.
There are those who are going to make the usual accusations we are
not protecting the environment enough, but this bill creates new
opportunities for recreation, for protection of our wildlife, and for
improving the quality of life of Americans. This bill deserves the
support of every Member of this House.
May I say, Madam Speaker, that for those who may think about voting
against this bill or this rule, I would suggest respectfully, because I
have worked with each Member who has come to me, it is going to be very
difficult in the future to listen to someone sincerely when they do not
support their own legislation, or when they suggest that ``I want to
have mine, but no one else gets theirs.''
I suggest that those things that are in Ohio, those things that are
in Pennsylvania and California, Mississippi, all those other States,
those Members had better think very carefully about this great bill.
As far as the administration threatening to veto it, I have never for
the life of me understood why we have to listen to the administration
with regards to administration saying they
[[Page
H9743]]
are going to veto it. We are supposed to be the governing body for the
people. If he wants to veto a parks bill, let the President veto it. I
have no objection to that, if he wishes to do so. That is our form of
government.
But I have listened day after day to this President threatening
vetoes. I am saying, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves if we listen
just to the President. Under our Constitution, we are the House of the
people. It is our decision. If we want to vote this bill down, fine,
but do not vote it down because in fact he threatens a veto. If Members
want a king, they can have a king. I suggest the President would make a
very poor king.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Miller), the former chairman and now the ranking
member of the Committee on Resources.
Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Madam Speaker, this rule is adequate for this purpose. It does
provide for an amendment. Obviously, the problem is that this bill
cannot be amended in such a fashion to make it a better bill. We have
declined to offer an amendment. We think the bill should be defeated.
It should be defeated because it is contrary to the procedures of this
House. It is contrary to sound environmental policy. It has many, many
bad provisions in it.
It also has some very good provisions in it. Unfortunately, those
good provisions are being used as bait. They are being used to try to
enable some bad things to happen in this legislation, and to provide
camouflage for the underlying provisions in this bill that are very bad
policy.
That is why the administration has said it will recommend a veto of
this legislation, should it pass. The reason Members ought to listen to
this recommendation is so we do not go through this charade and then
end up with nothing.
The fact of the matter is there are many, many portions of this bill
sponsored by Members on both sides of the aisle that are
noncontroversial, that have bipartisan support, and that can be dealt
with and passed out of the House almost immediately on unanimous
consent. We can deal with those pieces of legislation.
{time} 1245
There are others that have had no hearings that we know very little
about, or are so controversial that they simply drag the whole package
down.
So Members can make a decision. They can vote ``no'' on this. Then we
can concentrate on passing legislation that will be without
controversy, that will address the needs of many, many Members, or they
can continue the charade that somehow this bill is going to pass, when
many of the Senators who are responsible for the jurisdiction of this
bill have indicated that the Senate will not give consideration to it.
Unfortunately, the Senate has passed some noncontroversial portions
of this bill and sent them off to the President. So the constituency
for this bill is declining, and the controversy is increasing. That
does not sound like a formula for success at the end of the session.
The fact of the matter is we have had all of this year in which many
of the provisions of this bill could have been brought before us and
then we could have dealt with them. But at the end of the session, this
is a veto. It is unacceptable. It is bad policy, and I would urge all
Members to vote against it and understand that not only the
administration, but all major environmental groups oppose this
legislation.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I think we need to lay out very clearly here,
especially in light of the criticism from the gentleman from California
(Mr. Miller) about the process that we are following. The gentleman
from California is quick to step up to the plate and criticize this
bill. But the gentleman from California has not been very quick to step
up to the plate and offer a substitute. Offer something better.
It is very easy to stand on this House floor and criticize the
Republicans and criticize the Democrats who have worked to put this
bill together. But I think that that criticism loses some of its
credibility when one who steps up has the opportunity under the rule,
has the opportunity under the rule to offer a substitute to put in
place of this a better bill, stands up and criticizes us. I think this
criticism would be much better received had they had a substitute on
that side.
I would add that that is not a Democrat or Republican kind of bill.
This is a bipartisan bill. So, we have a few Members on the Democratic
side criticizing this thing. But still, out of fairness, the Republican
leadership out of fairness insisted that these Democrats who are
objecting to this bill have an opportunity, out of fairness, have an
opportunity to offer their own proposal.
They declined to do that. Why? Because they do not want any
criticism. It is much easier to criticize somebody than offer a
substitute or come up with a good alternative. And that is the exact
route they are traveling, and in my opinion that route comes to a dead
end.
Madam Speaker, this is a good bill, a good rule; it is a fair bill,
and a fair rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall)
for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. It is only at the
end of the session that we will probably ever see rules like this in
which there is simply no opportunity for the body to work its will on
what constitutes almost 100 different land use and park measures in one
bill.
Some of these have been passed and are noncontroversial and have
received deliberation of the Committee on Resources and the
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands. But many of these
provisions, of course, have not been considered or debated on the House
floor on their merits. We are forced to swallow whole in this case
almost a hundred different modifications to various land use policy.
Of course, it is easy enough to say that there is an alliance here
between Members that have some provision in this bill, and that they
are basically being force-fed 99 other bills along with the one
provision that they want to see enacted into law. But this is not the
way to do business in terms of park and public land policy.
If these issues had been vetted, if they had been amended, if they
had been debated on their merits, but there is no opportunity here
today to in fact amend or to extract these specific provisions from
this bill and move on in a deliberate way with the measures that are
before us. There is simply no way to do it.
This is sort of a sorry excuse. I think the committee has worked very
hard over the last 2 years in having hearings. I know I've sat through
my share of such hearings. I am a little surprised that at the end of
the session now they bring forth this type of bill, when there is not
consensus on it, when all the major conservation and environmental
groups are against it and numerous proposals of controversy bad policy
and no hearings on the topic.
It is bad policy. It is a bad rule. This is not providing the ability
of the body to work its will. This is simply a slam dunk of 100
different land use decisions that frankly repeal long-standing
wilderness designations, that provide for roads, provide for other
types of activities, and it is being force-fed to the Members as if
they have to accept it in order to gain some reasonable changes in
terms of public lands and parks bills that they want. The veiled threat
and policy is inherent in this approach.
Quite frankly, I think the Congress has rightfully reserved to itself
some of the responsibility to work on parks and public lands bills. But
this type of action, I think, is the type of action that will, in fact,
argue for changing that particular responsibility and conveying this
responsibilty to the administration, because I think it is
irresponsible to act on a measure of this nature, of this magnitude, in
this rule.
Madam Speaker, this is simply a slam-dunk rule that is going to not
provide for deliberation or consideration. It is an attempt to push
through this body measures that cannot survive on their own merit on an
up-or-down vote, and they are shoved into this measure.
[[Page
H9744]]
Someone talks about it being ``park pork.'' It is more that that.
Part of this pork sausage is rancid meat that is into this omnibus park
pork sausage. As Bismarck said, those that like laws and sausages
should never watch either being made. I would hope we would move away
from such an approach. It is not so much sausage, but that we have
rancid meat in here that destroys our parks and wilderness system, that
are an affront to the American people, and that is why I urge a ``no''
vote on this rule and on this bill.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman's are very eloquent comments, but where
is the meat? The gentleman has an opportunity to offer a substitute. If
he thinks this is a rotten bill, he should come up with a better car.
We are not prohibiting. Our rule is very specific. Let me make it
clear that this rule allows the opposition to come up with a substitute
through the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). He is free to do
that.
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield? I would be happy
to respond.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I would be happy to yield in a moment, if
the gentleman would sit around and listen to the debate.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla).
(Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and
of this legislation that is a result of a lot of hard work between both
sides on this committee. The gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and
the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) have done an outstanding job
in moving this legislation forward.
This bill contains, as the chairman alluded to earlier, many stories
out in the heartland that will result in positive changes in
communities affecting National Parks all over the country. It is a good
bipartisan bill, and every Member of Congress that is affected by this
bill has a good story to tell about the changes that would result when
this legislation passes.
I will just highlight briefly what will happen in my congressional
district. There is a piece of land that the owners would like to donate
to the Fort Davis National Historic Site. And there are other bills as
well that have other local significance, and these changes should not
fall prey to partisan politics.
In my part of the country, the bill would permit a simple 16-acre
expansion of the Fort Davis historical site. This legislation is
necessary because the original legislation limited the historic site to
460 acres.
Fort Davis is located in the heart of west Texas, a wonderful part of
the country nestled in an area that is very scenic in its own rough and
rugged way. I am proud to represent this area, and I would like to
invite my colleagues to visit this area any time they are passing
through my State.
That entire area of the State is the most popular tourist attraction
in the State of Texas now. The fort was a key post in the defense of
west Texas and thus played a major role in this region's history. From
1854 to 1891, troops at the post guarded immigrants, freighters, and
stage coaches on the San Antonio-El Paso Road. Fort Davis is the best
remaining example in the Southwest of the typical post-Civil War
frontier fort. The post has extensive surviving structures and ruins.
The particular parcel of land that would be added is known as
Sleeping Lion Mountain. This land overlooks the park's historic
landmarks. It is adjacent to the park's southern boundary, and I
believe that the inclusion of this tract of land into the site would
ensure the visual and historic integrity for this State and national
treasure.
The land is slated to be donated to the National Park Service by the
Conservation Fund. The land has been purchased by the Conservation
Fund. They secured the funds from several private foundations to
purchase this land. The purchase of the land was completed in April,
and they are simply waiting for us to act. In fact, they have been
waiting for a long time for us to act.
Madam Speaker, this park expansion has the blessing of the local
community and is supported by the Texas Historical Commission. This is
a simple piece of legislation that allows for a minor park expansion.
And reflecting on the story that I just told, Madam Speaker, there are
countless others around the country that could be told about a positive
change in their community and their national parks that could result in
something good for the communities that these communities are crying
out for.
Madam Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen)
and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), as well as the
gentleman from New York (Chairman Solomon), my friend who is sitting to
my right, and also the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) who has
worked hard on this rule and on this legislation.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento), out of fairness, for him to respond.
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
McInnis), and I will certainly also get time from the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hall). But this rule does not even provide the opportunity
for 5 minutes debate for each of the measures in the bill. I mean, that
is its sort of stand-on-your-head-type logic, because it says we can
offer a substitute, but this rule waives all points of order against
the substitute offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), but
does not waive them for the substitute if offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Miller). And we did not know what the substitute was
going to be, and we were supposed to have the amendment in by Monday.
It is an unequal playing field and a bad bill and a bad rule.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think the gentleman from Minnesota has brought up a couple of valid
points. I am not sure that the gentleman is aware of the historical
perspective up in the Committee on Rules. Waivers were offered, and on
top of that, we gave the other side an hour, 1 hour, of debate on the
substitute. I am baffled by the fact that there is such strong
criticism coming about this bill, yet no one who criticizes has decided
to step forward with a better car.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I would just point out that I think it is
an impossible process when we have nearly a hundred measures in here
that are important. The measure that the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla) mentioned is important, and I do not have any objections to
it. But this does not provide 5 minutes of debate, not even a minute of
debate for each measure in the bill. I think these measures deserve
attention.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the
gentleman, that is exactly the point. It is a very complicated bill. It
has lots of different projects in it. We are not going to get everybody
in here happy about this all the time. But this is probably, this is
clearly the most critical bill dealing in helping our national parks we
have had this session.
We cannot put together the perfect model because we have too many
players and projects. This is the best we are going to get. And if the
gentleman could have done better, he should have introduced it.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert).
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but in
opposition to the bill. It is a perfectly fine rule for a fatally
flawed bill.
I had hoped not to be standing here today. I had hoped the Committee
on Resources would pull together a noncontroversial bill, one that
would be signable, that actually had a chance to become law. That
result was encouraged before the bill was even introduced and there was
an offer to negotiate.
Indeed, discussions did take place for 4 days last week. But the
Committee on Resources opened those negotiations by listing the items
that they considered nonnegotiable, and they were some of the worst
provisions of
[[Page
H9745]]
the bill. That is not a very promising way to start negotiations.
But we still tried to work out issues concerning forestry, Bureau of
Reclamation projects, and the rules governing wilderness areas.
Unfortunately, none of these issues was fully resolved. We did reach a
compromise on one provision, procedures for a NEPA waiver for certain
forests.
In short, the bill and the manager's amendment do not address my
concerns or the concerns of so many of my colleagues. If my colleagues
have heard otherwise, they have been misled.
So, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, but oppose the bill; a
bill that could have been negotiated, a bill that could have been
noncontroversial, a bill that could have helped Americans all around
the country, but a bill that instead is opposed by every environmental
group.
It is opposed by the Taxpayers for Common Sense, it is opposed by the
administration, it is a bill that is going nowhere, regardless of what
happens here today. The majority of this bill could have been passed on
the suspension calendar if the temptation had been resisted to deal
with controversial matters that have never been the subject of full and
open hearings.
I have no objection to the rule. It is a tribute to my friend and
good chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon). But I urge
defeat of the bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
{time} 1300
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to
both the rule and to
H.R. 4570. I say reluctant because this is likely
the last parks bill to be considered by the House in this Congress, and
I would have liked it to be bipartisan.
Madam Speaker, this bill contains laudable provisions which should be
enacted into law. The bill contains many provisions supported today by
both sides of the aisle, and many more provisions, I believe, that
could have been negotiated into forms both sides could have supported.
Over the past several weeks I have had discussions with several Members
concerning their sections of this bill, and I was prepared to work with
them and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) to craft a bill that
could have passed the House today. Such a bill could stand a good
chance of being enacted into law.
Madam Speaker, among the provisions which I believe there is
bipartisan support for are the expansion of the Fort Davis National
Historic Site in Texas, expansion of the Arches National Park in Utah,
establishment of the Thomas Cole National Historic Site in New York,
the amendments to the boundaries of the Abraham Lincoln Birth Place
National Historic Site in Kentucky, the Automobile National Heritage
Area in Michigan and Indiana, and the land exchanges involving Yosemite
National Park and the Cape Cod National Seashore.
Among the provisions I believe, Madam Speaker, that could have been
negotiated to acceptable resolutions are the Cumberland Island National
Seashore in Georgia and the San Rafael Swell National Conservation Area
in Utah.
With all due respect to my dear friend and colleagues, the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), even
with the changes contained in today's amendment, there are many
provisions which I cannot support in good conscience. Among those are
the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land, the requirements for congressional
approval of national monuments, and changes in environmental laws which
go farther than I believe are beneficial to our public resources.
Madam Speaker, these are honest differences on how best to manage our
public parks, lands and forests. Based on my subcommittee work with the
gentleman from Utah over the past 2 years, I think many of these
differences could have worked out. There are others, however, that,
given the number of them and basic philosophical differences between
the Members, we probably could not have resolved. I believe we should
have saved the provisions for which there is strong support by pulling
others from this bill. Perhaps this is unacceptable from the majority's
perspective, but as we move through these last days of this Congress, I
had hoped that we could have focused on moving to enactment as many
meritorious bills as possible. With more compromise from the parties
involved, we could have done this.
Madam Speaker, as I noted earlier, I would have preferred to be
speaking in support of this legislation, but given the substantive
differences, I feel compelled to recommend to my colleagues to vote
against this rule as well as the bill.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time. I was not going to speak on this measure, but I have been
sitting here listening patiently to the debate and I just am surprised
at the opposition to the rule from the Democrat side.
I am looking at a chart here of all of the individual bills that are
incorporated into this.
H.R. 3047 passed the House,
H.R. 799 on the
Union Calendar, and another on the Union Calendar. Here are four more
that have passed the House. We can go right down the line here. Most of
this legislation has already been acted on by this body, and passed
either unanimously or by overwhelming vote. Not even one of these bills
was controversial.
I would like to say to the other side that before we took over
control of the House 4 years ago, we Republicans were treated quite
badly. We had ranking members of full committees that were not given
the opportunity to offer a substitute. We have changed the protocol in
the Committee on Rules and we never, ever deny the minority party the
right to offer their alternative--not through a motion to recommit or
not through defeating the previous question, but through a substitute.
And they are given ample time.
We offered that to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
I specifically said, and Members can go back upstairs and read the
record, that if the gentleman from California needed waivers, we would
do it. All he needed to do was to print his bill, have it printed in
the Record so it is there for Members to see in the morning. That is
really bending over backwards. We have done everything we can to be
fair, and then I see people stand up here opposing the rule. I just do
not understand it.
Ronald Reagan taught me the value of compromise years ago, and it was
hard to teach me, because as my colleagues saw from yesterday's tribute
on the floor, I am very opinionated. But when we do compromise, it
feels like we are compromising our principles. But that is what this
body is all about. We have to work together. We should be doing that.
I want to assure everybody, all the conservatives in this House, that
I have scoured the bill. There is nothing in the bill that intrudes on,
that infringes on States' rights or the individual rights of local
governments, whether they be towns or villages or cities or counties.
This bill does not do that. So from that point of view, it is a good
bill.
It is a good bill from some of the environmentalists' point of view.
I saw my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), who I
appreciate is going to vote for the rule, but he is going to oppose the
bill. For the Hudson Valley there is very important legislation in the
bill that my good friend the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Jim Hansen), the
subcommittee chairman, has provided.
I brought to the floor a bill not too long ago, and it passed the
House. During debate I brought in the paintings of Frederick Church and
Thomas Cole, which are just outstanding, which pictorialize the entire
northeast, the Hudson Valley, the Adirondack and Catskill Mountains.
That legislation is in here. And every environmentalist that I know in
the mid Hudson Valley supports this legislation. So I just do not know
where all the opposition is coming from.
I think Members should vote for the rule and certainly they should
support the bill. It is a good bill, and I thank
[[Page
H9746]]
the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to say that we do not argue with the fact that there are some
very good provisions in this bill, but the fact is it is my
understanding that over half of the provisions that are in this bill
have never been reported from the committee, and there is over two
dozen provisions that have never, ever had a hearing.
So the people on the committee and the people on the floor of the
House, we do not know what is in this bill and we just want a chance to
take a look at it, debate it, and we cannot do it today with this very
restrictive rule.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Vento).
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. Listening to the appeal of our distinguished friend and chairman
of the Committee on Rules, I would just point out that the history of
Mo Udall and, for that matter, the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller), who most recently led this committee and now has passed
the torch on to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Don Young), was to, in
fact, have open rules on most of these issues.
As has been indicated here, with a hundred measures on this bill, no
opportunity to amend them, some that have not had hearings, some
considerable number, some that are very controversial, if it were only
the matter of the Thomas Cole measure, that has passed this House and
is awaiting action in the Senate, that were included in this bill as a
way to try to optimize the opportunity to enact some of these measures
into law, I think most of us would be trying to work to accomplish
that. It is a difficult task in this format. But given the way that
this has been constructed, and the controversy over many of these
issues, I think it is unreasonable to expect us to accept this type of
substitute.
I think that in order to achieve that, it is not something we are
going to do a slam dunk passage here in the House and score some
points. It is not going to accomplish what is being sought. I think it
has a tendency to polarize. There just is not enough time, given the
rule and where we are at on the floor today, to go through and expect
to get hours and hours of debate on this. And, logically, the gentleman
did not provide that, given the circumstance we are in this week
attempting to end this session.
So I think this is a step backward toward seeing the enactment of the
good provisions and mixing them up with the bad and hoping somehow
that, by rolling the dice here, that we will get to enact these
particular measures. This is not the way to do business. This is not
deliberative. This is not fair. I understand the pressure the Committee
on Rules and the body is under, but this is not a step forward, it is a
step backward.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado
yielding this time to me and the excellent remarks that he has made,
and let me just say a few things.
We have heard all this stuff, but let us get down to the facts on
this baby and what really happened. People are saying, oh, this is
going to be vetoed. We promise it will be vetoed. I want to hearken
back to 2 years ago. We stood here with a bill that had more titles in
it, more bills in it than we have today, and we heard exactly the same
thing: oh, this one will be vetoed.
How many of my colleagues were with me as we stood in the oval office
while the President put his John Henry on that and said, this is a
great way to do legislation. The President of the United States said
that. I do not know if I agree with him that it is a good way to do
legislation.
But now we hear these other arguments. It has all these things in it
that we have not had hearings on. We have not had time on these things.
Well, guess what? Most of these are so minuscule, so infinitesimal that
they amount to nothing. The bills in here that have got things of
substance in it we have had hearings on. We have had a lot of them on
the floor. And when we start looking at some of these others, they are
almost infinitesimal.
What is this rule about and this bill about? It is about compromise.
The whole thing is compromise. My staff, the staff of the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Don Young), the staff on the other side has worked
with others to try to compromise in some of these areas. I almost feel
bad that we have compromised so far on our side. I think we have given
away the store in some particular things.
But I would like to talk about some of those things on this term
compromise. It probably comes down to only two bills in this whole
shooting match that really bothers anybody, and this is probably the
biggest one, right here. It is called San Rafael Swell. This happens to
be an area that I doubt anybody in this room, other than me and maybe
one other, has ever seen, but my colleagues should go look at it. It is
one of the most beautiful geological things the Lord ever put on the
earth.
But as we look at that particular area, the people in Emery County
said someday we have to come to grips with this area. This is where
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid mixed it up with a few people. This
is where there were shootouts and there were mines. This is a very
interesting area. People who go in there are just enthralled with the
history of the area. So they came up with the San Rafael Swell. And the
Emery and Carbon County folks, all those good Democrats down there,
said this is what we will do. We will work out something with the
environmental community that will work. And so they did, and they gave
them about everything. Yet every environmentalist I have talked to said
we do not like the way they have it.
Look at this. This green area goes into wilderness under this bill.
This light green goes into primitive areas that are nonmotorized. So
what is the issue? We are giving them everything they asked for but one
thing, and that is called Sid's Mountain. Please look at this yellow
place right here. That is Sid's mountain. A very interesting place. But
15 years ago Fish and Wildlife and the State of Utah, and fish and
wildlife came from all over America, said this is the ideal place to
have the desert big horn sheep. We do not have a good herd anywhere. We
have some other places, but not anywhere in the west. So they started
the desert big horn sheep.
Guess what the problem is? They have to drink water, just like all
the rest of us do, and there is no water on that mountain. So they came
up with this original idea called guzzlers. For those who do not know
what a guzzler is, let me explain it. It is a large thing that works by
evaporation. And through the sun coming up and then it getting cold, it
evaporates, goes into a trough, and the big horn sheep get their water
there.
However, we all realize the 1964 wilderness bill says what? We cannot
have a mechanized thing in the wilderness. So we cannot have guzzlers.
So they cannot have the sheep. Well, a lot of people want to go in and
see them. There are some roads at the bottom of this, and a lot of
people want to see these sheep.
But when it gets down to this great big thing that we are all mad
about, it comes down to the idea of the San Rafael Swell and the desert
big horn sheep.
Now, we have talked to our environmental friends and asked them what
they have against the desert big horn sheep. That is the whole issue on
this rascal. The desert big horn sheep seems to be the whole thing that
may turn this bill one way or the other. And I am stale waiting for a
member of the Sierra Club or one of the others to stand up and say this
is what we have against the desert big horn sheep.
What it amounts to is the idea of wilderness. They have built their
whole thing on wilderness. They should build it on the term restrictive
areas. It means the same thing, but one is a romantic word and one is
another word.
Let me go through a few others. The Canyon Ferry Reservoir we
considered modification. The Tuskegee Historic Site we went on. The
water projects with the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) we went
on. The Nevada Airport, we worked that out. The
[[Page
H9747]]
things with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Don Young), we came up with
a provision on the Chugach area. The C Canal. The list goes on and on
of things we have agreed to, to make this an acceptable bill.
{time} 1315
I personally would urge the passage of this rule, and I would urge
the passage of this bill. This is a good piece of legislation. We have
played this game time after time. We will hear the same arguments every
time. The fact of the matter is the President signed it the last time,
and I would hope he would see the wisdom in signing it this time.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, moments ago,
HR 4570 was described as a
``delicate balance'' not to be disturbed by votes against either the
resolution or the rule. In fact, the primary justification presented
for passage of the bill was the ``brilliance'' with which a compromise
securing the necessary number of votes was ``engineered.'' Statements
such as these are an unfortunate commentary on the state of affairs in
the nation's capital insofar as they represent not advancement of sound
policy principles but rather a seriously flawed process by which
federal government ``favors'' are distributed in a means which assures
everyone gets a little something if they vote to give enough other
districts a little something too. This is not the procedure by which
Congress should be deciding matters of federal land disposition and
acquisition. In fact, there appears to be no Constitutional authority
for most of what
HR 4570 proposes to do.
Particularly frustrating is that in my attempt to return authority to
the State of Texas for a water project located in the 14th District, I
introduced
HR 2161, The Palmetto Bend Title Transfer Project. Return of
such authority comports with my Constitutional notion that local
control is preferred to unlimited federal authority to dictate from
Washington, the means by which a water project in Edna, Texas will be
managed. I understand that certain Members of Congress may disagree
with the notion of the proper and limited role of the federal
government. The point here, however, is that the ``political process''
embracing the so-called ``high virtue of compromise'' means that in
order for one to vote for less federal authority one must, at the same
time, in this bill, vote for more. Political schizophrenia was never
more rampant. One would have to vote to authorize the transfer of
377,000 acres of public land in Utah to the federal government (at
taxpayer expense of $50 million for Utah's public schools) in order to
return Lake Texana to the State of Texas.Two unrelated issues; two
opposite philosophies as to the proper role of the federal government--
a policy at odds with itself (unless, of course, compromise is one's
ultimate end).
HR 2161 merely facilitates the early payment of the construction
costs (discounted, of course, by the amount of interest no longer due
as a consequence of early payment) and transfers title of the Palmetto
Bend Project to the Texas state authorities. Both the LNRA and TWDB
concur that an early buy-out and title transfer is extremely beneficial
to the economical and operational well-being of the project as well as
the Lake Texana water users. The Texas Legislature and Governor George
W. Bush have both formally supported the early payment and title
transfer. In fact, even the residents of Highland Lakes in Travis
County who initially expressed a concern as to the effects of the title
transfer on the Colorado River Basin, came to support the legislation.
This bill will save Lake Texana water users as much as one million
dollars per year as well as providing an immediate infusion of $43
million dollars to the national treasury. Additionally, all liability
associated with this water project are, under my legislation, assumed
by the state of Texas thus further relieving the financial burden of
the federal government.
Texas has already demonstrated sound management of this resource.
Recreational use of the lake has been well-provided under Texas state
management to include provision of a marina, pavilion, playground, and
boating docks, all funded without federal money. Additionally, a
woodland bird sanctuary and wildlife viewing area will also be
established upon transfer with the assistance of the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department and several environmental organizations.
Members of Congress must not be put in the position of having to
support a massive federal land grab to secure for the residents of
Texas more local control over their water supply. For these reasons,
while I remain committed to the return of Lake Texana to Texas State
authorities, I must reluctantly and necessarily oppose
HR 4570.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill and
in particular to Section Nine which seeks to reduce hazardous fuels in
our national forests. While I oppose many provisions in this bill, I am
particularly concerned with the process by which this legislation has
made its way to the floor. Most of the provisions have circumvented
Committee consideration and some have never even been considered by the
relevant Subcommittee. There is a reason why there is a detailed
procedure for the consideration of legislation in the House--a
procedure that I strongly support--and I am very dismayed that
H.R.
4570 was not developed in this way. As many of my colleagues are aware,
I have been very active in reforming management policies in our
National Forests. Until his point, the dialogue on this issue between
various interested parties within Congress has been very productive.
However, the provisions pertaining to hazardous fuels reduction in this
bill are a step backwards in improving the management of our National
Forests. Section Nine authorizes the Forest Service to combine
commercial timber sales with forest stewardship contracting. Further,
it establishes an off-budget account that while initially funded by
transferring money from the hazardous fuels reduction program, is
regenerated through timber receipts from these sales.
As a fiscal conservative, I cannot support the connection of these
contracts. Providing offsets for timber purchasers to do stewardship
work in connection with a timber sale may have the result of paying
timber purchasers to take our natural resources. No Member with any
fiscal sense should support such a policy.
While this practice may work in private forestry, it is not something
I can support on our federal lands. If private contracting is the most
effective and cost-efficient option for performing stewardship
contracting, it should be used, but separate to a commercial timber
sale. There is no reason that these two services need to be connected
in a contract.
In addition, since I already have concerns about existing off-budget
accounts maintained by the Forest Service, I cannot support the
establishment of another one. Everyone can agree on the fact that the
Forest Service has fiscal accountability problems. Allowing them to use
more money without Congressional oversight is completely irresponsible.
Since I know that there are many good and important provisions in
this bill, I am sorry that I cannot support it. However, my concerns
with other provisions are serious enough to warrant my overall
opposition. It is my hope that in the future this sort of process for
developing legislation will be avoided and real progress can be made.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to
ten percent of the Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act of 1998.
This massive 481 page document that rolls almost 100 bills into one
package is ninety percent perfect. It makes needed technical
corrections to the 1996 Omnibus National Parks Act, makes important
adjustments to park boundaries, designates desirable land as heritage
and historic areas, and reauthorizes the Historic Preservation Fund.
The bill even establishes the transcontinental American Discovery Trail
which ends in Cape Henlopen State Park in my State of Delaware.
However, ten percent of this bill needs to be separated out and
addressed on an individual basis.
That ten percent includes some of the following measures:
Opens areas proposed or being managed as wilderness to possible
development, including the Everglades National Park which Congress has
spent millions of dollars to restore;
Hands over title and operation of some western water projects to
private interests without requiring them to pay full value for the
project. This year, the House passed the Salton Sea Reclamation Act
with a price tax of almost one-third of the Bureau of Reclamation's
annual budget. There is a long list of other reclamation projects
seeking funding. Why then would we want to sell existing projects at
less than their fair market value? it is not fiscally responsible
especially in a year where the President wants to spend the Social
Security Surplus on ``emergency'' spending;
Waives environmental review procedures for a proposed road that cuts
through one of the richest wetlands on the Pacific Coast of North
America, as well as a migratory bird nesting area, and salmon spawning
grounds. The value of this road may well outweigh these environmental
concerns, but we should not blindly authorize the road easement without
stopping to study its full environmental impact and plotting a course
that minimizes the environmental harm. That is simply poor management.
Ninety percent of this bill could have been one of the shining stars
in the 105th Congress' environmental record. Instead, due to the
controversial ten percent it will either die in this chamber, never be
considered in the Senate, or be vetoed at the President's desk. We have
precious few days left in the legislative session and many of us need
to return to our districts and debate serious national issues with
political opponents. Let us not be the only institution to pass an
unsignable law that has
[[Page
H9748]]
not been thoroughly examined by the committee process, and ten percent
of which bypasses or degrades the world-class environmental protections
we have established in this country.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Omnibus
National Parks and Public Lands Act. In particular, I would like to
address one portion of the act regarding Cumberland Island National
Seashore in my district.
Cumberland Island National Seashore is governed largely by two
establishing acts. The first, in 1972, created the seashore. The
second, the 1982, established a large wilderness area on the island.
Unfortunately, this act was assembled hastily and before the National
Park Service's wilderness suitability study was completed. The
unfortunate result was that the wilderness designation was placed on
top of a number of important historic assets, essentially locking them
away and seriously jeopardizing their existence. While the listing of
these structures, districts, and sites on the National Register of
Historic Places represents the Federal Government's obligation to
protect them, their inclusion within the wilderness in 1982 seriously
undermines that effort. Not only does it impede public access to these
treasures, it presents significant obstacles to their preservation.
These concerns were recognized and noted to Congress in writing at the
time by both the President and the Department of Interior, but they
were not corrected.
Mr. Chairman, Cumberland Island is a beautiful and unique island. The
diversity of its resources is one of its greatest strengths. My
intention in introducing this legislation is to recognize the value of
this diversity and protect it. I believe it is indeed possible--and
imperative in this case--to protect both the natural and historic
assets. They do not have to be mutually exclusive goals.
This bill takes three basic steps to achieve this balance. First, it
removes the wilderness or potential wilderness label from structures
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This provision will
lift restrictions on the Park Service as to the steps they can take to
preserve them. It also removes the fundamental conflict of mandates on
how these structures are to be treated: whether they are to be
preserved according to the Historic Preservation Act of allowed to
``revert to their natural state'' consistent with the Wilderness Act.
The bill also seeks to provide public access to these sites. Because
they are encased in wilderness, the only way for the public to visit
them is by making a 15 to 30 mile round trip hike. Obviously, only very
healthy backpackers can ever see and learn from these sites. A two-
hundred year old road (which itself has been designated as a national
historic asset), known as the ``Main Road'' or ``Grand Avenue'' runs
from the south end of the island up to many of these historic sites
within the wilderness. Our bill allows this road to be used in some
manner which does not have an undue negative impact on the wilderness
so that the park's visitors can see, study, and enjoy these sites.
Unfortunately, under the present circumstances, few visitors even
realize all that exists on the island, let alone the events that
enhance their historic significance. Cumberland's history is as rich as
Georgia's. Off its shore, pirates once loomed and British and Spanish
warships fought. Soldiers were stationed there in the War of 1812.
Revolutionary War hero Nathaniel Greene and his remarkable wife Katie
Littlefield Greene farmed and planted there. Their Cumberland Island
timber business supplied the wood for ``Old Ironsides.'' Thomas
Carnegie built mansions on the Island and once had over 300 servants
there. On the north end of the island is a historic settlement called
Half Moon Bluff founded by newly emancipated slaves. This was one of
the first free Black settlements in America and one of the few which
embodies and represents their transition from slavery to freedom and
landownership. In all, there are nine Cumberland island sites and
districts and many structures on the National Register of Historic
Places. Today many of their remnants are gone, and the rest are
decaying.
The third component of the legislation authorizes the restoration of
the beautiful historic Plum Orchard mansion which has dangerously
deteriorated. This house was gifted to the Federal Government on the
condition that it be maintained and enjoyed by the public. I am sorry
to say that this trust has been betrayed. W
Amendments:
Cosponsors: