Search Bills

Browse Bills

93rd (26222)
94th (23756)
95th (21548)
96th (14332)
97th (20134)
98th (19990)
99th (15984)
100th (15557)
101st (15547)
102nd (16113)
103rd (13166)
104th (11290)
105th (11312)
106th (13919)
113th (9767)
112th (15911)
111th (19293)
110th (7009)
109th (19491)
108th (15530)
107th (16380)

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:

Search Bills

Browse Bills

93rd (26222)
94th (23756)
95th (21548)
96th (14332)
97th (20134)
98th (19990)
99th (15984)
100th (15557)
101st (15547)
102nd (16113)
103rd (13166)
104th (11290)
105th (11312)
106th (13919)
113th (9767)
112th (15911)
111th (19293)
110th (7009)
109th (19491)
108th (15530)
107th (16380)

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:


bill

Search Bills

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: