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)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001


Sponsor:

Summary:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 15, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4498-H4567] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Pursuant to House Resolution 524 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4578. {time} 1039 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4578) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday June 14, 2000, the amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) had been disposed of and the bill [[Page H4499]] was open for amendment from page 53 line 10 through page 53 line 22. Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, the amendment by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), adding a new section at the end of title I, if offered, shall begin with his initial 5-minute speech in support of the amendment. No further debate on that amendment shall be in order. Amendments to that amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) or the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), each shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence of both the chairman and the ranking member to allow me to speak out of turn. The reason I would like to address the House this morning is with respect to the roadless forest initiative. My colleague and friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), had originally looked at introducing some limitation amendments on the roadless forest initiative and as he will say shortly has decided not to introduce them. In some ways I regret that but I certainly respect his decision. I rise in opposition to the roadless forest initiative. I represent a national forest that was once the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forest. Like so many others, I have a concern over the effect of the roadless forest initiative on the economy of my district and the health and safety of our national forests. I would like to make three brief quick points this morning to show the breadth of opposition in my home area to this roadless forest initiative. First, local units of government in the State of Wisconsin in general, and in the Eighth Congressional District, oppose the roadless forest initiative. The Wisconsin Counties Association opposes it. The Counties of Vilas and Oneida and Oconto and others oppose it. They oppose it because they understand how dependent our communities and our economy is upon the national forest, recreation, and timber harvesting. They also oppose it because they recognize that cutting off these forests to human access poses substantial fire and safety risks. Point number two, the roadless forest initiative violates a historic compact between local units of government and the Federal Government. This national forest in northern Wisconsin was created in the 1920s. There were a series of transactions between local units of government, county forests, the private sector and the Federal Government. On record, on the public record and in public documents, specifically these transactions were made with an understanding that access to the national forests would be maintained, in fact, explicitly that commercial access to the forests would be maintained. Yet, the roadless forest initiative, if it is implemented, would break that understanding, would break that agreement. Very clearly, the Federal Government is on the verge of breaking its word with the people of northeastern Wisconsin and very clearly these local leaders would never, would never, have transferred county forest to the national forest if they knew that years down the line we would go back on our word. Finally and most damning, the Forest Service employees of northern Wisconsin themselves oppose the roadless forest initiative. The very people being called upon to implement the roadless forest initiative oppose it. They have taken a formal position through Local 2165 of the National Federation of Federal Employees, they have taken a formal position against the roadless forest initiative. They understand the difficulties of enforcing it. They understand how it will do tremendous damage to our way of life and they understand how the roadless forest initiative has failed to take into account the local concerns in northern Wisconsin. I will later place in the Record these resolutions demonstrating the clear opposition in northern Wisconsin to this initiative. Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) indicated, we were prepared to offer up to several amendments to block the roadless initiative and the road management rule. Instead, through conversations with the Chair and the ranking member, we have decided not to. These policies and rules that are currently pending before the National Forest Service are still pending. We will have time in the months ahead to help fashion and mold hopefully something we can all live with. Let me just take a few minutes here and explain what is going on with the roadless initiative and the road management policy. {time} 1045 These are new Forest Service policies. They are decisions affecting the national forests throughout the country. They are not found in any of the local-national forest management plans, and they are developed without a local input and without local forest officials' input. Now, the roadless initiative on the face of it does not sound too bad, because it includes defined roadless areas. In my two national forests in Ottawa, that is 4,600 acres and in the Hiawatha National Forest, that is 7,600 acres. We could probably agree that, in those areas that are identified, it makes some sense not to put roads; and we agree that could make some sense. But then it calls for other unroaded areas, other unroaded areas. We do not know the size of those areas. We do not know where they are located. It cannot be simply identified. So if we cannot identify the other unroaded areas, why would we let a policy go through and we as Members of this Congress allow a policy to go through that we have no clue, no clue where these other areas are. Talk to Washington officials, they say one's local officials know. Talk to our local forest officials, and we have had hearings on this part, and they said we do not know because we do not have the guidelines. So they would let a policy go through. Look, the proper role on roadless initiative, identify the areas; and if one wants it to be a wilderness area, that is a proper role of Congress. We should do it. Proposals undetermine other roaded areas. It limits one's access. It limits one's use. It limits one's enjoyment of the forest. If it was the roadless initiative, we could probably live with that, but look at what else is going on at the same time. At the exact time is this thing called road management rule. The only way one can build a road in the national forest if this road management rule goes through is if there is a compelling reason for a road. Temporary roads that we use and rely on for fire fighting, for insect control, for harvesting timber are not recognized. No more temporary roads, none whatsoever. Who has to agree to it? Not the local foresters, but the regional forester. In Milwaukee, they are going to decide for Michigan and Wisconsin whether or not there is going to be a road in northern Michigan regardless of what the local forestry officials say. So it virtually bans road construction and reconstruction. So in other words, one cannot even fix up a forest road if this policy goes through, only essential classified roads, no feeder roads, no feeder roads. It does not recognize temporary roads for forest timbers. So put the roadless initiative with this road management rule that no one knows anything about, put it together, and one has new policies, new rules that will supersede existing locally developed forest management plans in our national forest. The results are one is going to have a national policy that says one size fits all. We lose our local control. There is no control input. Economic impact is not even recognized. For northern Wisconsin and northern Michigan and Minnesota, we rely upon our national forests, not just for timber sales, for recreation, no personal enjoyment, for hunting; but one has no input. Those economies are not even recognized as we develop these policies. Last but not least, the new policies and rules change the established use of the forest, the access to the forest, and the activities that can be performed within the forest. [[Page H4500]] What we have here, as we have debated this bill many times in the past, legislative attempts to limit road building, to limit reconstruction of roads in our national forests. They cannot pass that. They cannot come before Congress and legislatively pass it. So they are doing this back-door approach through a rulemaking process on road management that there is no input. One can write one's comments, but there is not a meeting anywhere in the United States where people from the local national forest did come and confront the local forest people and say here is what we need roads for. Why cannot one reconstruct this one road that goes to our lake? Because they are going to put through an administrative rule underneath the Administrative Procedures Act. So I urge all Members to look at the roadless initiative. When one applies the road management on top of that roadless initiative, we have serious problems with what is going on in our national forests. I ask them to be vigilant and fight these policies by the National Forest Service. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), ranking member, for allowing the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and I to proceed outside of order. New Forest Service Policies/Rules (Decisions affecting National Forests; not found in Forest Management Plans; developed without local community & local forest officials input) roadless initiative (Includes defined Roadless Areas and undefined ``other unroaded'' areas) Wilderness Designation is proper role of Congress. Proposes undetermined ``other unroaded areas''. Limits access, use & enjoyment of forest. road management rule (Only if compelling reason for a road; no ``temp'' roads; EIS signed by Regional Forester) Virtually bans forest road construction & reconstruction. Only essential classified roads (no feeder roads). Does not recognize temporary roads for timber harvest. new policies/rules that supersede existing locally developed Forest Plans--Results National Policy--``one size-fits-all'' mentality, loss of local control. Economic Impact--not recognized, local economies depend on National Forests. New Policies/Rules--change established uses, access & activities. Amendment Offered By Mr. Dicks The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report copy B of the Dicks amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks: On page 52, after line 15, add the following new section: Sec. . Any limitation imposed under this Act on funds made available by this Act related to planning and management of national monuments, or activities related to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan shall not apply to any activity which is otherwise authorized by law. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House yesterday, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which would overcome section 334 and 335 of the Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. My amendment seeks to overcome the funding limitation imposed in the bill under section 334 and 335 relating to the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan, known as ICBEMP, and the design, planning, and management of national monuments. Both of these provisions are objectionable to the Clinton administration, and the committee has received a letter from the Office of Management and Budget director Jack Lew stating that the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto unless these riders are removed. Section 334 of the bill would stop the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, ICBEMP, from going forward. The author of the provision included report language to the bill language stating concern that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are not in compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Flexibility Act by completing a regulatory flexibility analysis. The administration, on the other hand, believes that such an analysis is not required. This is a major issue in this debate. Now, I understand that the author of the amendment may have concerns about the agencies complying with all laws, but I have been assured by the administration that they are, in fact, in compliance with all existing Federal laws and, therefore, object to the inclusion of this provision which would basically stop their work on this particular project. Further, I do not know whether the author of the amendment does or does not support the Columbia Basin Project's goals, but I think it is vitally important to articulate why it should go forward and not be stopped with a rider in this Interior appropriations bill. The Columbia Basin Project was initiated by President Clinton in 1993 to respond to landscape-scale issues, including forest and rangeland health, the listing of Snake River salmon, bull trout protection, and treaty and trust responsibilities to the Tribes in the area. It also sought to bring more certainty and stability to the communities located in the Columbia River Basin, which were impacted by these events. What we had before were literally dozens of smaller management plans that only addressed specific areas within the basin. The goal of ICBEMP was to better assemble each individual plan into a more coordinated watershed-based program. ICBEMP has several goals. Among them is to better protect the habitat important to threatened and endangered species and also to provide a long-term plan for mining, grazing, and timber harvest, all of which are still allowed under the project. It is not a land grab, nor does it take decisions out of the hands of local communities and local management offices. It is an important step to better manage these critical lands, and it has had several years in development and has received extensive public comments and participation. Section 335 prevents the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture from using any funds for the purpose of designing, planning, or management of Federal lands as national monuments which were designated since 1999. This provision attempts to restrict the designation of monuments by the President under the authority of the 1906 Antiquities Act by using a back-door method: funding limitation. A prohibition on spending funds for these monuments would not change their legal status, but it would prevent any ongoing spending within the monument areas as defined by law. I would say to all of my colleagues who had monuments declared, that the author of the amendment chose not to cover his monument, but he is covering our colleagues' monuments. The author of the amendment included language in the Interior Appropriations report to accompany the bill which states: ``Nothing in this language prevents either Secretary from managing these Federal lands under their previous management plans.'' But the bill language clearly states that no money shall be expended for the purpose of design, planning, or management of Federal lands as national monuments. Once the President has acted to designate these lands, they are legally designated and would thus be subject to the spending limitation. All this provision would do is ensure that no Federal dollars by our land and resource management agencies could be spent in these areas. A monument designation does not lock up these lands. Quite the contrary, monument status does not preclude such activities as grazing or mining. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.) Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, monument status also involves an extensive community involvement process so that programs can be established for all public uses. Hunting, fishing, hiking, canoeing are all allowed in these areas. But they would all be stopped if we could not do necessary wildlife surveys and environmental programs. This provision would not allow any funds to be spent for law enforcement [[Page H4501]] and staffing in the monument. In the areas where there are visitors' centers, they would be closed because the provision would preclude any funds from being spent to operate, maintain, or staff them. I understand that some of the President's recent designations have been controversial. But he has had, in each instance, the complete authority to act under the jurisdiction of the 1906 Antiquities Act. If the authorizing committees, and I note the presence of the chairman of the authorizing committee, if the authorizing committee of jurisdiction wishes to reexamine the Antiquities Act or wishes to pass legislation to cancel any specific monument designation, then they should do so. But the inclusion of this provision and the other provisions are ill- advised and ensure a veto by the President. I urge support of my amendment and hope the House agrees that these provisions should not be included in this bill. Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Nethercutt to the Amendment Offered By Mr. Dicks Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment to the amendment. The text of the amendment to the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 46 offered by Mr. Nethercutt to the amendment offered by Mr. Dicks: Strike ``monuments,'' and insert ``monuments or''. Strike ``, or activities related to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan''. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 14, 2000, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt). Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the Dicks amendment would strike the provision in the Dicks amendment concerning the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, called ICBEMP. First and foremost, the linkage of the national monuments portion of the Dicks amendment with the Interior-Columbia Basin Management Project language in his amendment requires that they be separated. They are not the same. They are completely different. They have no relevance to each other. They have no relationship to each other. Therefore, on that point alone, my amendment should be adopted. My amendment seeks to strip the ICBEMP language from the Dicks amendments. So that is point number one, and that is the simplest way to look at this whole issue. The second issue and the reason for removing it from the Dicks amendment is that this ICBEMP project was begun in 1993 as a scientific assessment of eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. Now, I want my colleagues and the chairman to keep this in mind, it started as a scientific assessment. We were going to take a look at the ecosystem condition of eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. The scientific findings were to be used as forest and Bureau of Land Management districts updated their land management plans. Since 1993, this administration has grown this project to a size that encompasses Idaho, western Montana, parts of Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. {time} 1100 Seven States, 144 million acres, are affected by what started out as an assessment informally. Even more troubling is that it has grown to a scope that it has now become a decision-making document with standards, meaning that the recommendations of the project managers will automatically amend the land use plans in the region. The seven-State region; 144 million acres. In 1998, the House had this issue before it. It voted to keep the Columbia Basin project advisory in nature. Not a rulemaking, not a decision-making document, but advisory. That language, which I sponsored and which was adopted by the House, rejected the idea that it should be more than advisory in nature. Unfortunately, in the negotiations on this whole issue at the last minute with respect to the omnibus appropriations, that language was sacrificed by the leadership and on the insistence of the President. Section 334 of the bill, language which I put in, requires the Forest Service and the BLM to comply with existing law. That is the second broad but important point in this whole debate. It requires this administration to follow existing law, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, prior to finalizing any interior Columbia Basin ecosystem management project record of decision. What is happening here, and those of us in the West understand this, is that this administration has time and time again tried to rush to judgment, to have a record of decision that will have the effect of law and that will affect dramatically the land use ability and land use of the western States, the seven western States which are part of this so- called study. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act passed overwhelmingly in this House, signed into law in 1996, requires agencies to do this simple task: Examine and mitigate for the impact that a proposed rule will have on small entities. This administration knows that the small entities, the small rural communities of eastern Washington and the seven western States that I mentioned, are impacted by this outside of the power that they have to stop it. So the only resource we have is to make sure that this administration complies with the law, and that is what this amendment does. It says before a record of decision is issued, Federal agencies must comply with the law that exists, that was signed into law by this President. I heard my friend from Washington say that he has an assurance from the administration that they do not have to comply with the law in this case; that this act does not apply to them. Only this administration would urge that the Congress ignore the obligation that this administration has to comply with the law. Only this administration would do that. So I am not persuaded by the assurance that we have been given that this law, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act does not apply. It applies, and there are court decisions that confirm that it applies. The General Accounting Office has issued a report confirming that it applies. This plan, the ICBEMP plan, is going to amend 62 individual land use plans in the West. It is going to amend land use plans on 32 national Forest Service and BLM administrative units in this project area. It will replace three interim strategies. The project is clearly a rule, and there are court decisions that say so. Failure to comply with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act is judicially reviewable by courts, and courts have invalidated agency rules on this basis, against Mr. Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, in 1998. Evidence is that the agencies have been wrong about this before. Over $56 million have been spent on this project. It is not authorized. This Congress has not authorized this project. The northwest industries have indicated to me that if a regulatory flexibility analysis is not completed, as required by law, and again that is all we are trying to do is have this administration comply with the law, they will pursue litigation which will throw this whole study into turmoil. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that the project does not leave itself open to litigation, if a record of decision is issued without having completed a regulatory flexibility analysis. This is overreaching by the administrative agencies of this government, by this administration, by the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the BLM. They are trying to go around the law, and that is wrong. That is wrong for rural America, it is wrong for the States that are represented in the West, and we should not let it happen. So this should be separated out from this amendment because it does not apply to the national monuments issue. It applies to the fairness and the obligation to small businesses to be [[Page H4502]] true to the law, and this administration is lacking in that regard if it tries to go forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my good friend and colleague that 7 years is hardly a rush to judgment. I want my colleagues to hear the language of this limitation in this appropriation bill. It says right here, ``None of the funds made available under this act may be used to issue a record of decision or any policy implementing the interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project not prepared pursuant to law, as set forth in chapter 6 of Title V of the United States Code.'' In all my years of being on the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, the relevance of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act has been somewhat questionable. But let us talk about the analysis that is done in an Environmental Impact Statement. It looks at the socioeconomic impact of the EIS. Now, either we can get serious and decide we want to really pass legislation, and this bill. Frankly, it is fatally flawed, but these limitations are objectionable to the administration every single year because they offend the process. We do not have hearings, we do not get into great detail on these things and, frankly, and the gentleman, of course, has been here for a number of years, but that is why we have authorizing committees and that is why in most instances we should let the authorizing committees deal with these substantive issues and not deal with them in the appropriations process. I think on both sides of the aisle there has been a consensus that we should not do these limitations unless there is just absolutely no other way to deal with the problem. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) in opposition to the Nethercutt amendment. Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time to speak against the Nethercutt amendment and in favor of the Dicks amendment. First, as it relates to what my friend from Spokane has advanced, I think it is important to allow the Columbia Basin Ecosystem plan to proceed. If adopted by this chamber, the Nethercutt amendment would retain the anti-environmental rider, which would block the implementation of this Pacific Northwest plan for forests, watersheds and endangered species. It is true that it has grown somewhat in terms of scope and dimension. It has done so because that is what has been dictated as in the best interests of the region that we all care about and in terms of what will make the most difference. Careful long-term planning is a help, not an impediment, to the various challenges that we face in the Pacific Northwest. I have heard my colleague more than once on this floor talk about the problems how this has stretched out over 7 years at a cost of $45 million. Well, adoption of this amendment, and subjecting yet another requirement to this plan, is only going to make the process more expensive and more time consuming. And, indeed, Congress itself is in no small measure a culprit. Every year that I have been here, since 1996, the Committee on Appropriations has been interfering with the orderly implementation of this review. Now, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) pointed out, the extension of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act to this study is something that has never before been required. It is vigorously disputed as to its applicability. But most important it opens up a very real possibility that we are going to block the potential Federal Government activity to improve the environmental and management activities in the Columbia River basin. It is going to make it more likely, not less likely, that a court is going to intervene, possibly issuing a decree that could mandate management plan changes and entirely halting the production of goods and services on Federal lands in project areas throughout its deliberations, and the variety of little pieces that are involved there. It is wrong. We ought to get on with this business. It has the greatest potential of solving some very real problems that we in the Pacific Northwest face. I would like to speak, if I could for a moment, to something that I consider even more insidious, and that is the underlying amendment that would include restrictions on the ability to have funding to implement the National Monuments Act. This is a major policy adjustment, as has been suggested by my colleague from Washington, and it would have severe, I hope unintended, consequences. Some may applaud at the prospect of not having law enforcement on our public lands, but that is an extreme position that would not be approved by my constituents, nor I think by the constituents of at least most of us in this Chamber. It is not going to do us any good to not be able to regulate off-road vehicles, law enforcement, mining, the grazing activities. This is categorically wrongheaded, and it is, in and of itself, why the administration will veto the bill. They would have no choice. But it is an example of the environmental extremism that we hear so often about on the other side of the aisle. If my colleagues do not like the Antiquities Act, they should go ahead and repeal it. If they do not like what the President has done in any specific designation, they should have the courage to bring a specific bill to Congress and undo it. They do not because these are popular actions, they are things that would be supported by this Chamber, and the environmental extremists on the other side of the aisle would rather play havoc with our ability to manage public land in an orderly fashion. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's point is right on target, as far as I am concerned. The gentleman mentioned this Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. According to the Department of the Interior, the House requires, under this amendment, the Federal Government to prepare analysis, to their knowledge, that has never been prepared for any land use planned effort, no matter its scope. As a result, the House action will unreasonably extend the duration of planning for this project, which, in part, due to requirements placed on the Federal Government by riders to every full year appropriation for Interior since 1996, has already taken 7 years to complete at considerable cost to the American taxpayer. The thing that I worry about is that we are going to get ourselves into the same mess we did before the forest plan was put into place, and that is that a Federal judge is going to say that we have not done the right things in terms of watershed protection, that we are not protecting these fish under the Endangered Species Act. He will stop all the logging, all the mining, all the grazing, and an injunction issue. And that is the worst possible outcome. So I am saying to the gentleman from Washington, who I do consider to be a friend and a thoughtful person, that it is time now to let this process go forward and finish this EIS and make the changes that are necessary to protect the bull trout, to protect the salmon runs on the Snake River, to make sure that we are doing the watershed protection so that we do not get the Endangered Species Act implemented in an adverse way in the gentleman's area. But we cannot simply do nothing. We cannot just say we have no plan, no strategy. I have supported both gentlemen from Washington on the issue of the Snake River dams. But if we are not going to take out the Snake River dams, then we have to do other things to protect the habitat, to deal with hatchery problems, to deal with harvest. And protecting the habitat is a major part of this requirement in order to protect these fish. I am going to let the gentlemen on the other side here have a chance, because I know the gentleman from Alabama is ready to go, but this amendment is offered in good constructive spirit. I think the strategy of trying to stop any change here is simply not going to work. It is going to wind up with the Endangered Species Act being applied by the Federal judges in a way none of us want, and so we have to make some hard decisions. [[Page H4503]] {time} 1115 We cannot say no to everything. That is why I supported the protection of the Hanford Reach. Because if we are not going to take out the dams, at least we will protect these salmon in the Hanford Reach. So I appreciate my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) yielding to me on this. This is something I feel very strongly about. I think the strategy here of continuing to delay this is a mistaken strategy, and that is why I offered this amendment. And I appreciate speaking on it. Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just conclude by expressing three things. First, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) in attempting to balance a very complex set of issues that we deal with in the Pacific Northwest. And oftentimes I know he must feel like he is the man in the middle. But I think he has addressed this in a direct and forthright manner. I do not think there is anybody in the Pacific Northwest who has worked harder to reach out to try to find middle ground and to avoid the catastrophe, I think, on all sides of these controversies. If we are going to cede our ability to plan in a thoughtful and manageable fashion and have it done on a piecemeal basis via the courts, I think we ought to move forward in terms of supporting what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has proposed. I want to make clear that, as far as the national monuments are concerned, my Republican colleagues have been in control here for the last 4 years, and they have been unable to fashion a compromise acceptable to the American public to go ahead and repeal this legislation. And we have been in fact left with, and I am pleased that we still have, an Antiquities Act that has been utilized by 14 Presidents over the course of the better part of this last century, since 1906, Republicans and Democrats alike. I think it would be a tragedy for this House to use this back-door attempt to try and take away a power to have disastrous consequences on lands that belong to the American public, and they want us to exercise this sort of stewardship. I would ask them to at least have the decency to bring forward legislation to repeal the Antiquities Act and do this in a straightforward fashion. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Utah. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and everybody on that side voted for two pieces of legislation to not repeal it but to take care of it. And what the gentleman has said and the other gentleman has said about law enforcement and other areas is just not true. What this does, if this gets through, all that ground will stay under the management plan it now has, which allows for law enforcement, which allows for cars. It does not make any changes whatsoever. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, that is simply not what the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service say. They say that once it is designated as a monument, this amendment applies. They cannot do law enforcement, they cannot do planning, they cannot take care of the visitor. They legally changed the designation and thus would be impacted. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would be happy if he would put in there to repeal that project. I would be very happy to have him do that. And when all else fails, read it and he will see he is wrong. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I am going to say this slowly to my friends on the other side just so we keep our eye on the ball here. This requires that the agencies of the Federal Government to deal in land management comply with the law. Talk about lawsuits. We are going to have big lawsuits if they do not comply with the law and adopt this amendment. That is what we are talking about here. The means to do justify the end. That is what this administration seems to want to do is just say, we do not care about the law, we just want to get this done. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Resources. Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, it has been an interesting conversation. I will stay away from the monuments, but we will talk about that later. We did vote on them on this floor. If the gentleman did not vote for it, he was not doing his duty. I am a little disappointed that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) opposes the Nethercutt amendment. The Nethercutt amendment does exactly what he says it does, it follows the law. I know the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) likes to follow the law. He goes to the State of Alaska and catches all my salmon. And the best thing I want to do is have the salmon reestablished on the Columbia River so he quits raiding my fish in Alaska. I mean, especially when he takes numerous amounts of those fish that I would like to take myself. I would like to suggest one thing. The Nethercutt amendment does exactly what is correct, following the laws that this Congress passed. But this administration has a great tendency to not to follow the law in any way, shape, or form. This is their habit. This is their MO. They care little about this Congress. We are going to do what we think is right and forget the people of America. Now, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) said it exactly right, the Columbia initiative was in fact a designation and a study on the Columbia River concerning mostly Oregon and Washington, Montana, Idaho, State River, Columbia River, etc.; and it is all being done by the agencies. And my colleagues want to have a decision that goes against the laws on the books today, a decision made by an administration that does not really follow the law? They want to include this Congress in that decision on how it will affect the local economy? They want to have a decision made now so we do not have further actions by the judicial branch? I am going to suggest, respectfully, if the Nethercutt amendment is not adopted it will end up in court and nothing will occur and no solution will be reached. So I am suggesting that the Nethercutt amendment is the right way to go. This is what should be done and will be done if we do what is right. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise in opposition to the Nethercutt amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is very poorly directed in a sense that if my colleagues are complaining about whether or not it is too expensive, I think this amendment only makes this process far more expensive. I think, also, the amendment is targeted at trying to declare the Basin Management Plan something that it is not, and that is that it is not a regulatory process, it is a management plan. All of us have gone through this. We have gone through this in the Sierra Mountains, where we have known that we cannot deal with this on an individualized little watershed bill; we have got to look at the entire ecosystem. In California we just completed with the governor and the Secretary of Interior the Cal Fed plan. Why? Because if we do not do that, it is very clear that all the pieces in and of themselves are deficient and they are deficient so we end up shutting down the water system in California, whether it is the irrigation system for our farmers, whether it is the drinking water for our cities, because the system cannot be operated in such a fashion. In order to stave that off, we engaged in comprehensive basin management just as we are talking about on the Columbia River. Because the gentleman from Washington is right, if we stop this process, if we kill this process, then we go back to the status quo. And [[Page H4504]] the status quo, it is a no-brainer for a court to put them right back into the situation that they are in on the other side of the mountains, on the western side, where they had chaos, where they had just chaos ruling in terms of whether people lost their jobs or communities did not do well or whether the forests were harvested or not harvested. This is a chance to get ahead of that curve. They spent $15 million trying to get ahead of that curve. They had endless meetings with local towns and communities and political subdivisions and all of that. And the question is, can they come up with a plan so they can continue to improve this, may continue the viability of the basin. This is no different than what we are confronting all over the West. And we are doing it so that we can escape the chaos of individualized slapping down of endangered species problems and all the rest of that. Because that is why this plan came into being, because we know what we can front down the road. So it is very easy that if they stop this, in fact, the evidence is so clear on its face that the judge simply decides that they cannot provide the level of management to provide the kinds of protections that are necessary to the habitat, to the watersheds, to the species; and, therefore, they are back into chaos. And it is difficult. We have been at this a number of years in California with the Cal Fed process. As difficult as it is, all parts of the puzzle recognize that, with a comprehensive management plan, they in fact are in a better place than what they would be. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with the fact about how complicated and difficult these are to work through. I think we would all agree on that. But what I keep hearing is how ICBEMP is going to resolve this issue just as the Northwest Forest Plan was resolved on the West side. Is the gentleman arguing that the Northwest Forest Plan is a success and has met its goals? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am arguing that what we have learned is that, absent comprehensive plans that address all facets of the various large basins, the large systems, whether it is the Sierra or the Columbia River or the California water system, absent that, what they get is they get back into chaos because the individual attempts are not sufficient to provide the level of protection. So they find themselves with the court running their systems as opposed to the political leadership and the local communities. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say this. We have been through this. On the West side, we were enjoined by the Federal judge, no timber harvesting. Zero. The new administration came in and held a summit in Portland, and nobody was entirely pleased with the outcome, but we got the injunctions lifted. We got some timber harvest restored. We got a $1.2 billion-a-year plan to help the communities deal with these problems. And we moved on. What we are talking about here with the Nethercutt amendment is going back to the way we used to do business, and that way is going to lead us to the Federal Court's injunction. And, again, he is going to hurt his own people. That is why I do not understand why he is doing this. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Because, as my colleague knows, the court is back saying the plan that has been put forward after that has been done on the Northwest Forest Plan is still not in compliance. Because the survey and manage requirements that were shoved in in the dark of night by this administration says the Forest Service has been unable and may indeed be incapable of meeting. We still are not achieving the goals of that plan. My point in this debate right here, right now, is that to use that as an example of success is not fair when it has been a failure. I agree we have got to have the science in place. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that is the case. Listen, they are going to continue to challenge us on Cal Fed from either side, from the agricultural side and from the environmental side. They will continue to challenge us on the Sierra plan. But the fact that they have a plan in place allows the judge to look at that in a much different fashion than if they have nothing in place so the judge can then tinker with the plan, but they are not back into wholesale injuctions on an eco-wide system. So that plan is serious, serious insulation from going back to where they were. I mean, maybe time has erased our memory what was going on in the Northwest. But take ourselves back to the late 1980s and 1990s, we had total chaos. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, so what he is arguing is that, if we are going to err at all, we need to err on the side of following the law. Right? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. No. The gentleman can say whatever he wants to say. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. But the General Accounting Office, in 1997, says that this does constitute a rule in their opinion and, therefore, this small business would follow. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, and obviously, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture seriously disagree with that. Let us not pretend that they do not. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just say to my friend from California, not from the Northwest, this is not killing the process at all. We are just requiring that the agencies of the Government comply with the law. The means do not justify the end. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules. {time} 1130 Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend from Eastern Washington for all the work that he has been doing on this issue. I do enjoy working with my friend from western Washington. We have worked on a lot of issues together that is obviously important to my district. I do appreciate that very much. But on this issue, obviously there is a basic difference as to how we should approach our economy and our resources in our given area. It is an honest difference of opinion, I think. What I find very interesting in the arguments that I have heard heretofore from my friend from western Washington and my friend from Oregon, they were saying that if we do not like this process by going through the appropriation process, we ought to use the authorizing process. I have always been a proponent of that, but I would make this point very clear. ICBEMP was never authorized. It was done at a time in 1993 when that side of the aisle controlled both houses of the Congress and for some reason they felt that they did not need to authorize this project. It was put in an appropriations bill and now we are living with the consequences of something that has grown from $5 million now to $56 million. It has kind of grown like Topsy and it has grown in scope, too. Let me make a couple of points that were made by those on the other side as far as their arguments. In his opening remarks, my friend from western Washington was saying that in the planning process, the ICBEMP provides more certainty and it does not take planning out of the local jurisdictions. I would just make this observation. This ICBEMP as it has been expanded in this time period covers some 105 counties in those seven States. Not one of those counties has passed a resolution in support of ICBEMP. In fact, to the contrary, 65 of those counties have passed resolutions in opposition to ICBEMP for the very reason opposite of what the gentleman said, they are concerned that this affects their planning process. [[Page H4505]] Again, this seems to be a pattern from this administration that we will have these meetings that has been mentioned a number of times, but at the end of the day we are not going to listen to the concerns of those at the local level. That seems to be a pattern over and over and over. What are the reasons why? I can state one of my large counties in my district, why they are concerned about the Federal Government doing this planning and governing in one area, in the northern part of my district in Okanogan County. They are concerned about how the Forest Service is addressing the issue of noxious weeds. They are not addressing the issue of noxious weeds in the forest land. That is going over into the private lands and it is putting a burden on the taxpayers in that area to fund the noxious weed board. That is just one example why they have a concern about the Federal Government taking over this planning. Finally, I would like to as far as the resource part of it make this observation, because the Endangered Species Act has been a threat, that if we do not do this, the Endangered Species Act is going to preempt everything, and we will end up in a bad situation. I would make this observation, that unless we listen to the local people that are affected, we are going to be in worse shape than we ever possibly think we could. Because it seems to me the implicit idea or thought process of this administration is to not trust those that are elected at the local level to make decisions. I find that, frankly, wrong. There is another example in my district where local people have worked together trying to comply with the Endangered Species Act as it is written right now through the HCP process. That was signed a couple of years ago by the Chelan and Douglas County PUDs. It still has not gone through the whole NEPA process yet, but they are very confident that if they go through that process, they can live to the letter of the law with the Endangered Species Act. I for one, by the way, think that the Endangered Species Act ought to be changed, but in the letter of the law they can. Why? Because this is local people working together to come to a solution. But ICBEMP, the way it is structured and what we have seen does not allow for that to happen. Finally, from the regulatory standpoint here with my friend from eastern Washington's amendment. This area that we are talking about is largely an agricultural area. There is no huge urban area like Portland, Oregon or like Tacoma or like the Bay Area in California. There is no large urban area like that. It is largely agriculture. If we do not know what the impact is going to be on the farm implement dealers or the farm chemical dealers or the food processors who are largely smaller businesses in that area, then we are not doing a service to those that are going to be affected. That is all that this amendment does, is to say, let us put everything into the mix and follow the law. After all, this is an unauthorized project. If the concern is that it goes for one more year, what is wrong with that, as long as we get it right? Because this will have a big impact on my constituents. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my friend from eastern Washington's amendment. I think it is the right thing to do in order to clarify where ICBEMP is going. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill). (Mr. HILL of Montana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HILL of Montana. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, my constituents are deeply concerned about this interior Columbia Basin management plan. They see this as kind of a classical bait and switch that occurred. Basically what happened is that the Clinton administration proposed this study as a scientific assessment so that we would have a regionwide science that could be applied to the individual forests for the development and the renewal of the individual forest management plans. In the process, the administration went to the local governments and solicited their input and their participation and invited them to participate in the process. As a consequence of that, there was pretty broad support for doing this scientific assessment, because, as the gentleman from California pointed out, it was necessary for us to be able to have local forest management plans, to have regionwide science in the development of those plans. But along the way, things changed. The administration decided that it was going to shift this from a scientific assessment to a decision- making document. What does that mean? It means that the standards and the rules and regulations that would be determined in interior Columbia Basin would be imposed on the local forests. The consequence of that is that now the individual forests cannot make individual forest management decisions. They have to comply with an increasing number of standards and rules and regulations that are on a regionwide basis. We have heard some talk out here about the success of this in a narrow regional area west of the Cascades. But, Mr. Chairman, the forests and the BLM lands that are being impacted by interior Columbia Basin are diverse. The species of trees is diverse. The elevations are diverse. The amount of rainfall that occurs is diverse. There is little similarity in these forests except that they are all part of the Columbia River drainage. In any event, the administration then determined that it was going to basically override the intent of Congress. Congress has said it wants forest management, land management decisions made locally by making an overriding regional decision document. The problem today is that this Interior-Columbia Basin issue and the Reg Flex issue is kind of caught up in a bigger set of issues. Because right now we have the designation of national monuments going on, the roadless forest initiative going on, mineral and oil and gas withdrawals of the Clinton administration, proposals to breach the dams on the Snake River and ICBEMP all occurring at one time. It is no wonder that the people in this region feel like there is a war being declared on them with all these things happening. What the gentleman from Washington's amendment is trying to do is deal with just one narrow area. That says that if ICBEMP is going to go through and it is going to be a decision-making document, then let us make sure that it complies with all the laws. If the goal of this device is to eliminate injunctions in court overriding local decisions, then it has to comply with all the law. That is what this amendment intends to do. I urge the support of the amendment. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) who is a valued member of the subcommittee. Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, one of the more unfortunate aspects of the present majority's rule of this House over the last several years has been this propensity to attach antienvironmental riders to appropriations bills. Essentially that is what we have here today in this particular context. Seven years ago, the administration embarked upon a plan to improve environmental management in the Columbia River Basin. All of the land affected by this plan, by the way, and very importantly, is public land. It is not private land. It is public land. It is land owned by all of the people of the country. So my constituents in New York as well as every constituent of every Member of this House has a stake in the development of this plan to manage important public resources in the Columbia River basin. That project has gone forward. It has gone forward very carefully, very intelligently, and in a very open way. An environmental impact statement has been produced. A supplemental environmental impact statement has been produced. All of the activities here have been based on good, sound, responsible science. The intention is to improve habitat in the Columbia River, to improve habitat for bull trout, for salmon, to improve recreational resources, to improve timber resources, and to have a comprehensive plan which will stand and which will allow people all across the spectrum, from recreational uses all across the spectrum to extracted uses to be able to use this public land in the most effective and efficient way. Now we have this amendment to the Dicks amendment which would block [[Page H4506]] implementation of this Pacific Northwest plan for forest watersheds and endangered species. It would do so by attempting to superimpose an aspect of the small business law onto the environmental law, to take one piece of a law and inappropriately attach it to a situation where it does not belong, has no standing, has no meaning and makes no sense. Therefore alone, for that reason alone, just on the structural basis of it, the technical aspects of it, this amendment ought to be rejected. But it ought to be rejected on much more solid ground and much more important ground, and that is this, we are here discussing the future of a very important part of America. Again, I emphasize, a part owned by all of the citizens of this country, held in trust by the Federal Government, administered by the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies within the Department of the Interior. Now, everybody has a responsibility to make sure that this works and this antienvironmental rider inappropriately attached to this bill ought to be very soundly and solidly rejected. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that just because someone says that it is an antienvironmental rider does not mean that it is. This is complying with the law. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) who is from the region that is affected by this study, not from outside our region. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to follow somebody from New York who has a district along the river much like the Columbia River, the Hudson River. There is a lot of similarity there. The difference is they do not have this kind of a planning process in place by the Federal Government, ICBEMP. I want to talk for a moment, Mr. Chairman, about the relationship of this requirement for this rule. The GAO, the General Accounting Office general counsel wrote in July of 1997 a letter to Congress that a national forest land and resource management plan generally was considered a rule for the purposes of this Small Business Regulatory Act. Failure to comply with this act is judicially reviewable and courts have invalidated agency rules on this basis. All we are asking here is for this administration to follow the law. And if there is a question about whether this is legal or not, would it not be time for this administration to err on the side of following the law if there is a question? Would that not be refreshing? Mr. Chairman, let me talk for a moment about the monument issue, because we have heard a lot about the Antiquities Act. I have a copy of the relevant statute here. Let me read from it, that ``any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument or any object of an antiquity situated on the lands owned or controlled by the government of the United States.'' {time} 1145 That is what we are talking about, these objects, these archeological fines. It goes on to say, that the Government may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. And then it goes on to talking about archeological sites, small little objects, and we are going to protect the land around it. Ladie

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 15, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4498-H4567] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Pursuant to House Resolution 524 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4578. {time} 1039 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4578) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday June 14, 2000, the amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) had been disposed of and the bill [[Page H4499]] was open for amendment from page 53 line 10 through page 53 line 22. Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, the amendment by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), adding a new section at the end of title I, if offered, shall begin with his initial 5-minute speech in support of the amendment. No further debate on that amendment shall be in order. Amendments to that amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) or the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), each shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence of both the chairman and the ranking member to allow me to speak out of turn. The reason I would like to address the House this morning is with respect to the roadless forest initiative. My colleague and friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), had originally looked at introducing some limitation amendments on the roadless forest initiative and as he will say shortly has decided not to introduce them. In some ways I regret that but I certainly respect his decision. I rise in opposition to the roadless forest initiative. I represent a national forest that was once the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forest. Like so many others, I have a concern over the effect of the roadless forest initiative on the economy of my district and the health and safety of our national forests. I would like to make three brief quick points this morning to show the breadth of opposition in my home area to this roadless forest initiative. First, local units of government in the State of Wisconsin in general, and in the Eighth Congressional District, oppose the roadless forest initiative. The Wisconsin Counties Association opposes it. The Counties of Vilas and Oneida and Oconto and others oppose it. They oppose it because they understand how dependent our communities and our economy is upon the national forest, recreation, and timber harvesting. They also oppose it because they recognize that cutting off these forests to human access poses substantial fire and safety risks. Point number two, the roadless forest initiative violates a historic compact between local units of government and the Federal Government. This national forest in northern Wisconsin was created in the 1920s. There were a series of transactions between local units of government, county forests, the private sector and the Federal Government. On record, on the public record and in public documents, specifically these transactions were made with an understanding that access to the national forests would be maintained, in fact, explicitly that commercial access to the forests would be maintained. Yet, the roadless forest initiative, if it is implemented, would break that understanding, would break that agreement. Very clearly, the Federal Government is on the verge of breaking its word with the people of northeastern Wisconsin and very clearly these local leaders would never, would never, have transferred county forest to the national forest if they knew that years down the line we would go back on our word. Finally and most damning, the Forest Service employees of northern Wisconsin themselves oppose the roadless forest initiative. The very people being called upon to implement the roadless forest initiative oppose it. They have taken a formal position through Local 2165 of the National Federation of Federal Employees, they have taken a formal position against the roadless forest initiative. They understand the difficulties of enforcing it. They understand how it will do tremendous damage to our way of life and they understand how the roadless forest initiative has failed to take into account the local concerns in northern Wisconsin. I will later place in the Record these resolutions demonstrating the clear opposition in northern Wisconsin to this initiative. Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) indicated, we were prepared to offer up to several amendments to block the roadless initiative and the road management rule. Instead, through conversations with the Chair and the ranking member, we have decided not to. These policies and rules that are currently pending before the National Forest Service are still pending. We will have time in the months ahead to help fashion and mold hopefully something we can all live with. Let me just take a few minutes here and explain what is going on with the roadless initiative and the road management policy. {time} 1045 These are new Forest Service policies. They are decisions affecting the national forests throughout the country. They are not found in any of the local-national forest management plans, and they are developed without a local input and without local forest officials' input. Now, the roadless initiative on the face of it does not sound too bad, because it includes defined roadless areas. In my two national forests in Ottawa, that is 4,600 acres and in the Hiawatha National Forest, that is 7,600 acres. We could probably agree that, in those areas that are identified, it makes some sense not to put roads; and we agree that could make some sense. But then it calls for other unroaded areas, other unroaded areas. We do not know the size of those areas. We do not know where they are located. It cannot be simply identified. So if we cannot identify the other unroaded areas, why would we let a policy go through and we as Members of this Congress allow a policy to go through that we have no clue, no clue where these other areas are. Talk to Washington officials, they say one's local officials know. Talk to our local forest officials, and we have had hearings on this part, and they said we do not know because we do not have the guidelines. So they would let a policy go through. Look, the proper role on roadless initiative, identify the areas; and if one wants it to be a wilderness area, that is a proper role of Congress. We should do it. Proposals undetermine other roaded areas. It limits one's access. It limits one's use. It limits one's enjoyment of the forest. If it was the roadless initiative, we could probably live with that, but look at what else is going on at the same time. At the exact time is this thing called road management rule. The only way one can build a road in the national forest if this road management rule goes through is if there is a compelling reason for a road. Temporary roads that we use and rely on for fire fighting, for insect control, for harvesting timber are not recognized. No more temporary roads, none whatsoever. Who has to agree to it? Not the local foresters, but the regional forester. In Milwaukee, they are going to decide for Michigan and Wisconsin whether or not there is going to be a road in northern Michigan regardless of what the local forestry officials say. So it virtually bans road construction and reconstruction. So in other words, one cannot even fix up a forest road if this policy goes through, only essential classified roads, no feeder roads, no feeder roads. It does not recognize temporary roads for forest timbers. So put the roadless initiative with this road management rule that no one knows anything about, put it together, and one has new policies, new rules that will supersede existing locally developed forest management plans in our national forest. The results are one is going to have a national policy that says one size fits all. We lose our local control. There is no control input. Economic impact is not even recognized. For northern Wisconsin and northern Michigan and Minnesota, we rely upon our national forests, not just for timber sales, for recreation, no personal enjoyment, for hunting; but one has no input. Those economies are not even recognized as we develop these policies. Last but not least, the new policies and rules change the established use of the forest, the access to the forest, and the activities that can be performed within the forest. [[Page H4500]] What we have here, as we have debated this bill many times in the past, legislative attempts to limit road building, to limit reconstruction of roads in our national forests. They cannot pass that. They cannot come before Congress and legislatively pass it. So they are doing this back-door approach through a rulemaking process on road management that there is no input. One can write one's comments, but there is not a meeting anywhere in the United States where people from the local national forest did come and confront the local forest people and say here is what we need roads for. Why cannot one reconstruct this one road that goes to our lake? Because they are going to put through an administrative rule underneath the Administrative Procedures Act. So I urge all Members to look at the roadless initiative. When one applies the road management on top of that roadless initiative, we have serious problems with what is going on in our national forests. I ask them to be vigilant and fight these policies by the National Forest Service. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), ranking member, for allowing the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and I to proceed outside of order. New Forest Service Policies/Rules (Decisions affecting National Forests; not found in Forest Management Plans; developed without local community & local forest officials input) roadless initiative (Includes defined Roadless Areas and undefined ``other unroaded'' areas) Wilderness Designation is proper role of Congress. Proposes undetermined ``other unroaded areas''. Limits access, use & enjoyment of forest. road management rule (Only if compelling reason for a road; no ``temp'' roads; EIS signed by Regional Forester) Virtually bans forest road construction & reconstruction. Only essential classified roads (no feeder roads). Does not recognize temporary roads for timber harvest. new policies/rules that supersede existing locally developed Forest Plans--Results National Policy--``one size-fits-all'' mentality, loss of local control. Economic Impact--not recognized, local economies depend on National Forests. New Policies/Rules--change established uses, access & activities. Amendment Offered By Mr. Dicks The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report copy B of the Dicks amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks: On page 52, after line 15, add the following new section: Sec. . Any limitation imposed under this Act on funds made available by this Act related to planning and management of national monuments, or activities related to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan shall not apply to any activity which is otherwise authorized by law. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House yesterday, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which would overcome section 334 and 335 of the Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. My amendment seeks to overcome the funding limitation imposed in the bill under section 334 and 335 relating to the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan, known as ICBEMP, and the design, planning, and management of national monuments. Both of these provisions are objectionable to the Clinton administration, and the committee has received a letter from the Office of Management and Budget director Jack Lew stating that the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto unless these riders are removed. Section 334 of the bill would stop the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, ICBEMP, from going forward. The author of the provision included report language to the bill language stating concern that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are not in compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Flexibility Act by completing a regulatory flexibility analysis. The administration, on the other hand, believes that such an analysis is not required. This is a major issue in this debate. Now, I understand that the author of the amendment may have concerns about the agencies complying with all laws, but I have been assured by the administration that they are, in fact, in compliance with all existing Federal laws and, therefore, object to the inclusion of this provision which would basically stop their work on this particular project. Further, I do not know whether the author of the amendment does or does not support the Columbia Basin Project's goals, but I think it is vitally important to articulate why it should go forward and not be stopped with a rider in this Interior appropriations bill. The Columbia Basin Project was initiated by President Clinton in 1993 to respond to landscape-scale issues, including forest and rangeland health, the listing of Snake River salmon, bull trout protection, and treaty and trust responsibilities to the Tribes in the area. It also sought to bring more certainty and stability to the communities located in the Columbia River Basin, which were impacted by these events. What we had before were literally dozens of smaller management plans that only addressed specific areas within the basin. The goal of ICBEMP was to better assemble each individual plan into a more coordinated watershed-based program. ICBEMP has several goals. Among them is to better protect the habitat important to threatened and endangered species and also to provide a long-term plan for mining, grazing, and timber harvest, all of which are still allowed under the project. It is not a land grab, nor does it take decisions out of the hands of local communities and local management offices. It is an important step to better manage these critical lands, and it has had several years in development and has received extensive public comments and participation. Section 335 prevents the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture from using any funds for the purpose of designing, planning, or management of Federal lands as national monuments which were designated since 1999. This provision attempts to restrict the designation of monuments by the President under the authority of the 1906 Antiquities Act by using a back-door method: funding limitation. A prohibition on spending funds for these monuments would not change their legal status, but it would prevent any ongoing spending within the monument areas as defined by law. I would say to all of my colleagues who had monuments declared, that the author of the amendment chose not to cover his monument, but he is covering our colleagues' monuments. The author of the amendment included language in the Interior Appropriations report to accompany the bill which states: ``Nothing in this language prevents either Secretary from managing these Federal lands under their previous management plans.'' But the bill language clearly states that no money shall be expended for the purpose of design, planning, or management of Federal lands as national monuments. Once the President has acted to designate these lands, they are legally designated and would thus be subject to the spending limitation. All this provision would do is ensure that no Federal dollars by our land and resource management agencies could be spent in these areas. A monument designation does not lock up these lands. Quite the contrary, monument status does not preclude such activities as grazing or mining. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.) Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, monument status also involves an extensive community involvement process so that programs can be established for all public uses. Hunting, fishing, hiking, canoeing are all allowed in these areas. But they would all be stopped if we could not do necessary wildlife surveys and environmental programs. This provision would not allow any funds to be spent for law enforcement [[Page H4501]] and staffing in the monument. In the areas where there are visitors' centers, they would be closed because the provision would preclude any funds from being spent to operate, maintain, or staff them. I understand that some of the President's recent designations have been controversial. But he has had, in each instance, the complete authority to act under the jurisdiction of the 1906 Antiquities Act. If the authorizing committees, and I note the presence of the chairman of the authorizing committee, if the authorizing committee of jurisdiction wishes to reexamine the Antiquities Act or wishes to pass legislation to cancel any specific monument designation, then they should do so. But the inclusion of this provision and the other provisions are ill- advised and ensure a veto by the President. I urge support of my amendment and hope the House agrees that these provisions should not be included in this bill. Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Nethercutt to the Amendment Offered By Mr. Dicks Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment to the amendment. The text of the amendment to the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 46 offered by Mr. Nethercutt to the amendment offered by Mr. Dicks: Strike ``monuments,'' and insert ``monuments or''. Strike ``, or activities related to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan''. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 14, 2000, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt). Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the Dicks amendment would strike the provision in the Dicks amendment concerning the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, called ICBEMP. First and foremost, the linkage of the national monuments portion of the Dicks amendment with the Interior-Columbia Basin Management Project language in his amendment requires that they be separated. They are not the same. They are completely different. They have no relevance to each other. They have no relationship to each other. Therefore, on that point alone, my amendment should be adopted. My amendment seeks to strip the ICBEMP language from the Dicks amendments. So that is point number one, and that is the simplest way to look at this whole issue. The second issue and the reason for removing it from the Dicks amendment is that this ICBEMP project was begun in 1993 as a scientific assessment of eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. Now, I want my colleagues and the chairman to keep this in mind, it started as a scientific assessment. We were going to take a look at the ecosystem condition of eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. The scientific findings were to be used as forest and Bureau of Land Management districts updated their land management plans. Since 1993, this administration has grown this project to a size that encompasses Idaho, western Montana, parts of Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. {time} 1100 Seven States, 144 million acres, are affected by what started out as an assessment informally. Even more troubling is that it has grown to a scope that it has now become a decision-making document with standards, meaning that the recommendations of the project managers will automatically amend the land use plans in the region. The seven-State region; 144 million acres. In 1998, the House had this issue before it. It voted to keep the Columbia Basin project advisory in nature. Not a rulemaking, not a decision-making document, but advisory. That language, which I sponsored and which was adopted by the House, rejected the idea that it should be more than advisory in nature. Unfortunately, in the negotiations on this whole issue at the last minute with respect to the omnibus appropriations, that language was sacrificed by the leadership and on the insistence of the President. Section 334 of the bill, language which I put in, requires the Forest Service and the BLM to comply with existing law. That is the second broad but important point in this whole debate. It requires this administration to follow existing law, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, prior to finalizing any interior Columbia Basin ecosystem management project record of decision. What is happening here, and those of us in the West understand this, is that this administration has time and time again tried to rush to judgment, to have a record of decision that will have the effect of law and that will affect dramatically the land use ability and land use of the western States, the seven western States which are part of this so- called study. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act passed overwhelmingly in this House, signed into law in 1996, requires agencies to do this simple task: Examine and mitigate for the impact that a proposed rule will have on small entities. This administration knows that the small entities, the small rural communities of eastern Washington and the seven western States that I mentioned, are impacted by this outside of the power that they have to stop it. So the only resource we have is to make sure that this administration complies with the law, and that is what this amendment does. It says before a record of decision is issued, Federal agencies must comply with the law that exists, that was signed into law by this President. I heard my friend from Washington say that he has an assurance from the administration that they do not have to comply with the law in this case; that this act does not apply to them. Only this administration would urge that the Congress ignore the obligation that this administration has to comply with the law. Only this administration would do that. So I am not persuaded by the assurance that we have been given that this law, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act does not apply. It applies, and there are court decisions that confirm that it applies. The General Accounting Office has issued a report confirming that it applies. This plan, the ICBEMP plan, is going to amend 62 individual land use plans in the West. It is going to amend land use plans on 32 national Forest Service and BLM administrative units in this project area. It will replace three interim strategies. The project is clearly a rule, and there are court decisions that say so. Failure to comply with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act is judicially reviewable by courts, and courts have invalidated agency rules on this basis, against Mr. Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, in 1998. Evidence is that the agencies have been wrong about this before. Over $56 million have been spent on this project. It is not authorized. This Congress has not authorized this project. The northwest industries have indicated to me that if a regulatory flexibility analysis is not completed, as required by law, and again that is all we are trying to do is have this administration comply with the law, they will pursue litigation which will throw this whole study into turmoil. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that the project does not leave itself open to litigation, if a record of decision is issued without having completed a regulatory flexibility analysis. This is overreaching by the administrative agencies of this government, by this administration, by the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the BLM. They are trying to go around the law, and that is wrong. That is wrong for rural America, it is wrong for the States that are represented in the West, and we should not let it happen. So this should be separated out from this amendment because it does not apply to the national monuments issue. It applies to the fairness and the obligation to small businesses to be [[Page H4502]] true to the law, and this administration is lacking in that regard if it tries to go forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my good friend and colleague that 7 years is hardly a rush to judgment. I want my colleagues to hear the language of this limitation in this appropriation bill. It says right here, ``None of the funds made available under this act may be used to issue a record of decision or any policy implementing the interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project not prepared pursuant to law, as set forth in chapter 6 of Title V of the United States Code.'' In all my years of being on the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, the relevance of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act has been somewhat questionable. But let us talk about the analysis that is done in an Environmental Impact Statement. It looks at the socioeconomic impact of the EIS. Now, either we can get serious and decide we want to really pass legislation, and this bill. Frankly, it is fatally flawed, but these limitations are objectionable to the administration every single year because they offend the process. We do not have hearings, we do not get into great detail on these things and, frankly, and the gentleman, of course, has been here for a number of years, but that is why we have authorizing committees and that is why in most instances we should let the authorizing committees deal with these substantive issues and not deal with them in the appropriations process. I think on both sides of the aisle there has been a consensus that we should not do these limitations unless there is just absolutely no other way to deal with the problem. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) in opposition to the Nethercutt amendment. Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time to speak against the Nethercutt amendment and in favor of the Dicks amendment. First, as it relates to what my friend from Spokane has advanced, I think it is important to allow the Columbia Basin Ecosystem plan to proceed. If adopted by this chamber, the Nethercutt amendment would retain the anti-environmental rider, which would block the implementation of this Pacific Northwest plan for forests, watersheds and endangered species. It is true that it has grown somewhat in terms of scope and dimension. It has done so because that is what has been dictated as in the best interests of the region that we all care about and in terms of what will make the most difference. Careful long-term planning is a help, not an impediment, to the various challenges that we face in the Pacific Northwest. I have heard my colleague more than once on this floor talk about the problems how this has stretched out over 7 years at a cost of $45 million. Well, adoption of this amendment, and subjecting yet another requirement to this plan, is only going to make the process more expensive and more time consuming. And, indeed, Congress itself is in no small measure a culprit. Every year that I have been here, since 1996, the Committee on Appropriations has been interfering with the orderly implementation of this review. Now, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) pointed out, the extension of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act to this study is something that has never before been required. It is vigorously disputed as to its applicability. But most important it opens up a very real possibility that we are going to block the potential Federal Government activity to improve the environmental and management activities in the Columbia River basin. It is going to make it more likely, not less likely, that a court is going to intervene, possibly issuing a decree that could mandate management plan changes and entirely halting the production of goods and services on Federal lands in project areas throughout its deliberations, and the variety of little pieces that are involved there. It is wrong. We ought to get on with this business. It has the greatest potential of solving some very real problems that we in the Pacific Northwest face. I would like to speak, if I could for a moment, to something that I consider even more insidious, and that is the underlying amendment that would include restrictions on the ability to have funding to implement the National Monuments Act. This is a major policy adjustment, as has been suggested by my colleague from Washington, and it would have severe, I hope unintended, consequences. Some may applaud at the prospect of not having law enforcement on our public lands, but that is an extreme position that would not be approved by my constituents, nor I think by the constituents of at least most of us in this Chamber. It is not going to do us any good to not be able to regulate off-road vehicles, law enforcement, mining, the grazing activities. This is categorically wrongheaded, and it is, in and of itself, why the administration will veto the bill. They would have no choice. But it is an example of the environmental extremism that we hear so often about on the other side of the aisle. If my colleagues do not like the Antiquities Act, they should go ahead and repeal it. If they do not like what the President has done in any specific designation, they should have the courage to bring a specific bill to Congress and undo it. They do not because these are popular actions, they are things that would be supported by this Chamber, and the environmental extremists on the other side of the aisle would rather play havoc with our ability to manage public land in an orderly fashion. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's point is right on target, as far as I am concerned. The gentleman mentioned this Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. According to the Department of the Interior, the House requires, under this amendment, the Federal Government to prepare analysis, to their knowledge, that has never been prepared for any land use planned effort, no matter its scope. As a result, the House action will unreasonably extend the duration of planning for this project, which, in part, due to requirements placed on the Federal Government by riders to every full year appropriation for Interior since 1996, has already taken 7 years to complete at considerable cost to the American taxpayer. The thing that I worry about is that we are going to get ourselves into the same mess we did before the forest plan was put into place, and that is that a Federal judge is going to say that we have not done the right things in terms of watershed protection, that we are not protecting these fish under the Endangered Species Act. He will stop all the logging, all the mining, all the grazing, and an injunction issue. And that is the worst possible outcome. So I am saying to the gentleman from Washington, who I do consider to be a friend and a thoughtful person, that it is time now to let this process go forward and finish this EIS and make the changes that are necessary to protect the bull trout, to protect the salmon runs on the Snake River, to make sure that we are doing the watershed protection so that we do not get the Endangered Species Act implemented in an adverse way in the gentleman's area. But we cannot simply do nothing. We cannot just say we have no plan, no strategy. I have supported both gentlemen from Washington on the issue of the Snake River dams. But if we are not going to take out the Snake River dams, then we have to do other things to protect the habitat, to deal with hatchery problems, to deal with harvest. And protecting the habitat is a major part of this requirement in order to protect these fish. I am going to let the gentlemen on the other side here have a chance, because I know the gentleman from Alabama is ready to go, but this amendment is offered in good constructive spirit. I think the strategy of trying to stop any change here is simply not going to work. It is going to wind up with the Endangered Species Act being applied by the Federal judges in a way none of us want, and so we have to make some hard decisions. [[Page H4503]] {time} 1115 We cannot say no to everything. That is why I supported the protection of the Hanford Reach. Because if we are not going to take out the dams, at least we will protect these salmon in the Hanford Reach. So I appreciate my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) yielding to me on this. This is something I feel very strongly about. I think the strategy here of continuing to delay this is a mistaken strategy, and that is why I offered this amendment. And I appreciate speaking on it. Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just conclude by expressing three things. First, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) in attempting to balance a very complex set of issues that we deal with in the Pacific Northwest. And oftentimes I know he must feel like he is the man in the middle. But I think he has addressed this in a direct and forthright manner. I do not think there is anybody in the Pacific Northwest who has worked harder to reach out to try to find middle ground and to avoid the catastrophe, I think, on all sides of these controversies. If we are going to cede our ability to plan in a thoughtful and manageable fashion and have it done on a piecemeal basis via the courts, I think we ought to move forward in terms of supporting what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has proposed. I want to make clear that, as far as the national monuments are concerned, my Republican colleagues have been in control here for the last 4 years, and they have been unable to fashion a compromise acceptable to the American public to go ahead and repeal this legislation. And we have been in fact left with, and I am pleased that we still have, an Antiquities Act that has been utilized by 14 Presidents over the course of the better part of this last century, since 1906, Republicans and Democrats alike. I think it would be a tragedy for this House to use this back-door attempt to try and take away a power to have disastrous consequences on lands that belong to the American public, and they want us to exercise this sort of stewardship. I would ask them to at least have the decency to bring forward legislation to repeal the Antiquities Act and do this in a straightforward fashion. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Utah. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and everybody on that side voted for two pieces of legislation to not repeal it but to take care of it. And what the gentleman has said and the other gentleman has said about law enforcement and other areas is just not true. What this does, if this gets through, all that ground will stay under the management plan it now has, which allows for law enforcement, which allows for cars. It does not make any changes whatsoever. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, that is simply not what the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service say. They say that once it is designated as a monument, this amendment applies. They cannot do law enforcement, they cannot do planning, they cannot take care of the visitor. They legally changed the designation and thus would be impacted. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would be happy if he would put in there to repeal that project. I would be very happy to have him do that. And when all else fails, read it and he will see he is wrong. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I am going to say this slowly to my friends on the other side just so we keep our eye on the ball here. This requires that the agencies of the Federal Government to deal in land management comply with the law. Talk about lawsuits. We are going to have big lawsuits if they do not comply with the law and adopt this amendment. That is what we are talking about here. The means to do justify the end. That is what this administration seems to want to do is just say, we do not care about the law, we just want to get this done. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Resources. Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, it has been an interesting conversation. I will stay away from the monuments, but we will talk about that later. We did vote on them on this floor. If the gentleman did not vote for it, he was not doing his duty. I am a little disappointed that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) opposes the Nethercutt amendment. The Nethercutt amendment does exactly what he says it does, it follows the law. I know the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) likes to follow the law. He goes to the State of Alaska and catches all my salmon. And the best thing I want to do is have the salmon reestablished on the Columbia River so he quits raiding my fish in Alaska. I mean, especially when he takes numerous amounts of those fish that I would like to take myself. I would like to suggest one thing. The Nethercutt amendment does exactly what is correct, following the laws that this Congress passed. But this administration has a great tendency to not to follow the law in any way, shape, or form. This is their habit. This is their MO. They care little about this Congress. We are going to do what we think is right and forget the people of America. Now, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) said it exactly right, the Columbia initiative was in fact a designation and a study on the Columbia River concerning mostly Oregon and Washington, Montana, Idaho, State River, Columbia River, etc.; and it is all being done by the agencies. And my colleagues want to have a decision that goes against the laws on the books today, a decision made by an administration that does not really follow the law? They want to include this Congress in that decision on how it will affect the local economy? They want to have a decision made now so we do not have further actions by the judicial branch? I am going to suggest, respectfully, if the Nethercutt amendment is not adopted it will end up in court and nothing will occur and no solution will be reached. So I am suggesting that the Nethercutt amendment is the right way to go. This is what should be done and will be done if we do what is right. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise in opposition to the Nethercutt amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is very poorly directed in a sense that if my colleagues are complaining about whether or not it is too expensive, I think this amendment only makes this process far more expensive. I think, also, the amendment is targeted at trying to declare the Basin Management Plan something that it is not, and that is that it is not a regulatory process, it is a management plan. All of us have gone through this. We have gone through this in the Sierra Mountains, where we have known that we cannot deal with this on an individualized little watershed bill; we have got to look at the entire ecosystem. In California we just completed with the governor and the Secretary of Interior the Cal Fed plan. Why? Because if we do not do that, it is very clear that all the pieces in and of themselves are deficient and they are deficient so we end up shutting down the water system in California, whether it is the irrigation system for our farmers, whether it is the drinking water for our cities, because the system cannot be operated in such a fashion. In order to stave that off, we engaged in comprehensive basin management just as we are talking about on the Columbia River. Because the gentleman from Washington is right, if we stop this process, if we kill this process, then we go back to the status quo. And [[Page H4504]] the status quo, it is a no-brainer for a court to put them right back into the situation that they are in on the other side of the mountains, on the western side, where they had chaos, where they had just chaos ruling in terms of whether people lost their jobs or communities did not do well or whether the forests were harvested or not harvested. This is a chance to get ahead of that curve. They spent $15 million trying to get ahead of that curve. They had endless meetings with local towns and communities and political subdivisions and all of that. And the question is, can they come up with a plan so they can continue to improve this, may continue the viability of the basin. This is no different than what we are confronting all over the West. And we are doing it so that we can escape the chaos of individualized slapping down of endangered species problems and all the rest of that. Because that is why this plan came into being, because we know what we can front down the road. So it is very easy that if they stop this, in fact, the evidence is so clear on its face that the judge simply decides that they cannot provide the level of management to provide the kinds of protections that are necessary to the habitat, to the watersheds, to the species; and, therefore, they are back into chaos. And it is difficult. We have been at this a number of years in California with the Cal Fed process. As difficult as it is, all parts of the puzzle recognize that, with a comprehensive management plan, they in fact are in a better place than what they would be. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with the fact about how complicated and difficult these are to work through. I think we would all agree on that. But what I keep hearing is how ICBEMP is going to resolve this issue just as the Northwest Forest Plan was resolved on the West side. Is the gentleman arguing that the Northwest Forest Plan is a success and has met its goals? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am arguing that what we have learned is that, absent comprehensive plans that address all facets of the various large basins, the large systems, whether it is the Sierra or the Columbia River or the California water system, absent that, what they get is they get back into chaos because the individual attempts are not sufficient to provide the level of protection. So they find themselves with the court running their systems as opposed to the political leadership and the local communities. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say this. We have been through this. On the West side, we were enjoined by the Federal judge, no timber harvesting. Zero. The new administration came in and held a summit in Portland, and nobody was entirely pleased with the outcome, but we got the injunctions lifted. We got some timber harvest restored. We got a $1.2 billion-a-year plan to help the communities deal with these problems. And we moved on. What we are talking about here with the Nethercutt amendment is going back to the way we used to do business, and that way is going to lead us to the Federal Court's injunction. And, again, he is going to hurt his own people. That is why I do not understand why he is doing this. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Because, as my colleague knows, the court is back saying the plan that has been put forward after that has been done on the Northwest Forest Plan is still not in compliance. Because the survey and manage requirements that were shoved in in the dark of night by this administration says the Forest Service has been unable and may indeed be incapable of meeting. We still are not achieving the goals of that plan. My point in this debate right here, right now, is that to use that as an example of success is not fair when it has been a failure. I agree we have got to have the science in place. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that is the case. Listen, they are going to continue to challenge us on Cal Fed from either side, from the agricultural side and from the environmental side. They will continue to challenge us on the Sierra plan. But the fact that they have a plan in place allows the judge to look at that in a much different fashion than if they have nothing in place so the judge can then tinker with the plan, but they are not back into wholesale injuctions on an eco-wide system. So that plan is serious, serious insulation from going back to where they were. I mean, maybe time has erased our memory what was going on in the Northwest. But take ourselves back to the late 1980s and 1990s, we had total chaos. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, so what he is arguing is that, if we are going to err at all, we need to err on the side of following the law. Right? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. No. The gentleman can say whatever he wants to say. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. But the General Accounting Office, in 1997, says that this does constitute a rule in their opinion and, therefore, this small business would follow. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, and obviously, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture seriously disagree with that. Let us not pretend that they do not. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just say to my friend from California, not from the Northwest, this is not killing the process at all. We are just requiring that the agencies of the Government comply with the law. The means do not justify the end. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules. {time} 1130 Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend from Eastern Washington for all the work that he has been doing on this issue. I do enjoy working with my friend from western Washington. We have worked on a lot of issues together that is obviously important to my district. I do appreciate that very much. But on this issue, obviously there is a basic difference as to how we should approach our economy and our resources in our given area. It is an honest difference of opinion, I think. What I find very interesting in the arguments that I have heard heretofore from my friend from western Washington and my friend from Oregon, they were saying that if we do not like this process by going through the appropriation process, we ought to use the authorizing process. I have always been a proponent of that, but I would make this point very clear. ICBEMP was never authorized. It was done at a time in 1993 when that side of the aisle controlled both houses of the Congress and for some reason they felt that they did not need to authorize this project. It was put in an appropriations bill and now we are living with the consequences of something that has grown from $5 million now to $56 million. It has kind of grown like Topsy and it has grown in scope, too. Let me make a couple of points that were made by those on the other side as far as their arguments. In his opening remarks, my friend from western Washington was saying that in the planning process, the ICBEMP provides more certainty and it does not take planning out of the local jurisdictions. I would just make this observation. This ICBEMP as it has been expanded in this time period covers some 105 counties in those seven States. Not one of those counties has passed a resolution in support of ICBEMP. In fact, to the contrary, 65 of those counties have passed resolutions in opposition to ICBEMP for the very reason opposite of what the gentleman said, they are concerned that this affects their planning process. [[Page H4505]] Again, this seems to be a pattern from this administration that we will have these meetings that has been mentioned a number of times, but at the end of the day we are not going to listen to the concerns of those at the local level. That seems to be a pattern over and over and over. What are the reasons why? I can state one of my large counties in my district, why they are concerned about the Federal Government doing this planning and governing in one area, in the northern part of my district in Okanogan County. They are concerned about how the Forest Service is addressing the issue of noxious weeds. They are not addressing the issue of noxious weeds in the forest land. That is going over into the private lands and it is putting a burden on the taxpayers in that area to fund the noxious weed board. That is just one example why they have a concern about the Federal Government taking over this planning. Finally, I would like to as far as the resource part of it make this observation, because the Endangered Species Act has been a threat, that if we do not do this, the Endangered Species Act is going to preempt everything, and we will end up in a bad situation. I would make this observation, that unless we listen to the local people that are affected, we are going to be in worse shape than we ever possibly think we could. Because it seems to me the implicit idea or thought process of this administration is to not trust those that are elected at the local level to make decisions. I find that, frankly, wrong. There is another example in my district where local people have worked together trying to comply with the Endangered Species Act as it is written right now through the HCP process. That was signed a couple of years ago by the Chelan and Douglas County PUDs. It still has not gone through the whole NEPA process yet, but they are very confident that if they go through that process, they can live to the letter of the law with the Endangered Species Act. I for one, by the way, think that the Endangered Species Act ought to be changed, but in the letter of the law they can. Why? Because this is local people working together to come to a solution. But ICBEMP, the way it is structured and what we have seen does not allow for that to happen. Finally, from the regulatory standpoint here with my friend from eastern Washington's amendment. This area that we are talking about is largely an agricultural area. There is no huge urban area like Portland, Oregon or like Tacoma or like the Bay Area in California. There is no large urban area like that. It is largely agriculture. If we do not know what the impact is going to be on the farm implement dealers or the farm chemical dealers or the food processors who are largely smaller businesses in that area, then we are not doing a service to those that are going to be affected. That is all that this amendment does, is to say, let us put everything into the mix and follow the law. After all, this is an unauthorized project. If the concern is that it goes for one more year, what is wrong with that, as long as we get it right? Because this will have a big impact on my constituents. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my friend from eastern Washington's amendment. I think it is the right thing to do in order to clarify where ICBEMP is going. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill). (Mr. HILL of Montana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HILL of Montana. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, my constituents are deeply concerned about this interior Columbia Basin management plan. They see this as kind of a classical bait and switch that occurred. Basically what happened is that the Clinton administration proposed this study as a scientific assessment so that we would have a regionwide science that could be applied to the individual forests for the development and the renewal of the individual forest management plans. In the process, the administration went to the local governments and solicited their input and their participation and invited them to participate in the process. As a consequence of that, there was pretty broad support for doing this scientific assessment, because, as the gentleman from California pointed out, it was necessary for us to be able to have local forest management plans, to have regionwide science in the development of those plans. But along the way, things changed. The administration decided that it was going to shift this from a scientific assessment to a decision- making document. What does that mean? It means that the standards and the rules and regulations that would be determined in interior Columbia Basin would be imposed on the local forests. The consequence of that is that now the individual forests cannot make individual forest management decisions. They have to comply with an increasing number of standards and rules and regulations that are on a regionwide basis. We have heard some talk out here about the success of this in a narrow regional area west of the Cascades. But, Mr. Chairman, the forests and the BLM lands that are being impacted by interior Columbia Basin are diverse. The species of trees is diverse. The elevations are diverse. The amount of rainfall that occurs is diverse. There is little similarity in these forests except that they are all part of the Columbia River drainage. In any event, the administration then determined that it was going to basically override the intent of Congress. Congress has said it wants forest management, land management decisions made locally by making an overriding regional decision document. The problem today is that this Interior-Columbia Basin issue and the Reg Flex issue is kind of caught up in a bigger set of issues. Because right now we have the designation of national monuments going on, the roadless forest initiative going on, mineral and oil and gas withdrawals of the Clinton administration, proposals to breach the dams on the Snake River and ICBEMP all occurring at one time. It is no wonder that the people in this region feel like there is a war being declared on them with all these things happening. What the gentleman from Washington's amendment is trying to do is deal with just one narrow area. That says that if ICBEMP is going to go through and it is going to be a decision-making document, then let us make sure that it complies with all the laws. If the goal of this device is to eliminate injunctions in court overriding local decisions, then it has to comply with all the law. That is what this amendment intends to do. I urge the support of the amendment. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) who is a valued member of the subcommittee. Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, one of the more unfortunate aspects of the present majority's rule of this House over the last several years has been this propensity to attach antienvironmental riders to appropriations bills. Essentially that is what we have here today in this particular context. Seven years ago, the administration embarked upon a plan to improve environmental management in the Columbia River Basin. All of the land affected by this plan, by the way, and very importantly, is public land. It is not private land. It is public land. It is land owned by all of the people of the country. So my constituents in New York as well as every constituent of every Member of this House has a stake in the development of this plan to manage important public resources in the Columbia River basin. That project has gone forward. It has gone forward very carefully, very intelligently, and in a very open way. An environmental impact statement has been produced. A supplemental environmental impact statement has been produced. All of the activities here have been based on good, sound, responsible science. The intention is to improve habitat in the Columbia River, to improve habitat for bull trout, for salmon, to improve recreational resources, to improve timber resources, and to have a comprehensive plan which will stand and which will allow people all across the spectrum, from recreational uses all across the spectrum to extracted uses to be able to use this public land in the most effective and efficient way. Now we have this amendment to the Dicks amendment which would block [[Page H4506]] implementation of this Pacific Northwest plan for forest watersheds and endangered species. It would do so by attempting to superimpose an aspect of the small business law onto the environmental law, to take one piece of a law and inappropriately attach it to a situation where it does not belong, has no standing, has no meaning and makes no sense. Therefore alone, for that reason alone, just on the structural basis of it, the technical aspects of it, this amendment ought to be rejected. But it ought to be rejected on much more solid ground and much more important ground, and that is this, we are here discussing the future of a very important part of America. Again, I emphasize, a part owned by all of the citizens of this country, held in trust by the Federal Government, administered by the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies within the Department of the Interior. Now, everybody has a responsibility to make sure that this works and this antienvironmental rider inappropriately attached to this bill ought to be very soundly and solidly rejected. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that just because someone says that it is an antienvironmental rider does not mean that it is. This is complying with the law. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) who is from the region that is affected by this study, not from outside our region. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to follow somebody from New York who has a district along the river much like the Columbia River, the Hudson River. There is a lot of similarity there. The difference is they do not have this kind of a planning process in place by the Federal Government, ICBEMP. I want to talk for a moment, Mr. Chairman, about the relationship of this requirement for this rule. The GAO, the General Accounting Office general counsel wrote in July of 1997 a letter to Congress that a national forest land and resource management plan generally was considered a rule for the purposes of this Small Business Regulatory Act. Failure to comply with this act is judicially reviewable and courts have invalidated agency rules on this basis. All we are asking here is for this administration to follow the law. And if there is a question about whether this is legal or not, would it not be time for this administration to err on the side of following the law if there is a question? Would that not be refreshing? Mr. Chairman, let me talk for a moment about the monument issue, because we have heard a lot about the Antiquities Act. I have a copy of the relevant statute here. Let me read from it, that ``any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument or any object of an antiquity situated on the lands owned or controlled by the government of the United States.'' {time} 1145 That is what we are talking about, these objects, these archeological fines. It goes on to say, that the Government may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. And then it goes on to talking about archeological sites, small little objects, and we are going to protect the land around

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)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001


Sponsor:

Summary:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 15, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4498-H4567] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Pursuant to House Resolution 524 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4578. {time} 1039 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4578) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday June 14, 2000, the amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) had been disposed of and the bill [[Page H4499]] was open for amendment from page 53 line 10 through page 53 line 22. Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, the amendment by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), adding a new section at the end of title I, if offered, shall begin with his initial 5-minute speech in support of the amendment. No further debate on that amendment shall be in order. Amendments to that amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) or the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), each shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence of both the chairman and the ranking member to allow me to speak out of turn. The reason I would like to address the House this morning is with respect to the roadless forest initiative. My colleague and friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), had originally looked at introducing some limitation amendments on the roadless forest initiative and as he will say shortly has decided not to introduce them. In some ways I regret that but I certainly respect his decision. I rise in opposition to the roadless forest initiative. I represent a national forest that was once the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forest. Like so many others, I have a concern over the effect of the roadless forest initiative on the economy of my district and the health and safety of our national forests. I would like to make three brief quick points this morning to show the breadth of opposition in my home area to this roadless forest initiative. First, local units of government in the State of Wisconsin in general, and in the Eighth Congressional District, oppose the roadless forest initiative. The Wisconsin Counties Association opposes it. The Counties of Vilas and Oneida and Oconto and others oppose it. They oppose it because they understand how dependent our communities and our economy is upon the national forest, recreation, and timber harvesting. They also oppose it because they recognize that cutting off these forests to human access poses substantial fire and safety risks. Point number two, the roadless forest initiative violates a historic compact between local units of government and the Federal Government. This national forest in northern Wisconsin was created in the 1920s. There were a series of transactions between local units of government, county forests, the private sector and the Federal Government. On record, on the public record and in public documents, specifically these transactions were made with an understanding that access to the national forests would be maintained, in fact, explicitly that commercial access to the forests would be maintained. Yet, the roadless forest initiative, if it is implemented, would break that understanding, would break that agreement. Very clearly, the Federal Government is on the verge of breaking its word with the people of northeastern Wisconsin and very clearly these local leaders would never, would never, have transferred county forest to the national forest if they knew that years down the line we would go back on our word. Finally and most damning, the Forest Service employees of northern Wisconsin themselves oppose the roadless forest initiative. The very people being called upon to implement the roadless forest initiative oppose it. They have taken a formal position through Local 2165 of the National Federation of Federal Employees, they have taken a formal position against the roadless forest initiative. They understand the difficulties of enforcing it. They understand how it will do tremendous damage to our way of life and they understand how the roadless forest initiative has failed to take into account the local concerns in northern Wisconsin. I will later place in the Record these resolutions demonstrating the clear opposition in northern Wisconsin to this initiative. Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) indicated, we were prepared to offer up to several amendments to block the roadless initiative and the road management rule. Instead, through conversations with the Chair and the ranking member, we have decided not to. These policies and rules that are currently pending before the National Forest Service are still pending. We will have time in the months ahead to help fashion and mold hopefully something we can all live with. Let me just take a few minutes here and explain what is going on with the roadless initiative and the road management policy. {time} 1045 These are new Forest Service policies. They are decisions affecting the national forests throughout the country. They are not found in any of the local-national forest management plans, and they are developed without a local input and without local forest officials' input. Now, the roadless initiative on the face of it does not sound too bad, because it includes defined roadless areas. In my two national forests in Ottawa, that is 4,600 acres and in the Hiawatha National Forest, that is 7,600 acres. We could probably agree that, in those areas that are identified, it makes some sense not to put roads; and we agree that could make some sense. But then it calls for other unroaded areas, other unroaded areas. We do not know the size of those areas. We do not know where they are located. It cannot be simply identified. So if we cannot identify the other unroaded areas, why would we let a policy go through and we as Members of this Congress allow a policy to go through that we have no clue, no clue where these other areas are. Talk to Washington officials, they say one's local officials know. Talk to our local forest officials, and we have had hearings on this part, and they said we do not know because we do not have the guidelines. So they would let a policy go through. Look, the proper role on roadless initiative, identify the areas; and if one wants it to be a wilderness area, that is a proper role of Congress. We should do it. Proposals undetermine other roaded areas. It limits one's access. It limits one's use. It limits one's enjoyment of the forest. If it was the roadless initiative, we could probably live with that, but look at what else is going on at the same time. At the exact time is this thing called road management rule. The only way one can build a road in the national forest if this road management rule goes through is if there is a compelling reason for a road. Temporary roads that we use and rely on for fire fighting, for insect control, for harvesting timber are not recognized. No more temporary roads, none whatsoever. Who has to agree to it? Not the local foresters, but the regional forester. In Milwaukee, they are going to decide for Michigan and Wisconsin whether or not there is going to be a road in northern Michigan regardless of what the local forestry officials say. So it virtually bans road construction and reconstruction. So in other words, one cannot even fix up a forest road if this policy goes through, only essential classified roads, no feeder roads, no feeder roads. It does not recognize temporary roads for forest timbers. So put the roadless initiative with this road management rule that no one knows anything about, put it together, and one has new policies, new rules that will supersede existing locally developed forest management plans in our national forest. The results are one is going to have a national policy that says one size fits all. We lose our local control. There is no control input. Economic impact is not even recognized. For northern Wisconsin and northern Michigan and Minnesota, we rely upon our national forests, not just for timber sales, for recreation, no personal enjoyment, for hunting; but one has no input. Those economies are not even recognized as we develop these policies. Last but not least, the new policies and rules change the established use of the forest, the access to the forest, and the activities that can be performed within the forest. [[Page H4500]] What we have here, as we have debated this bill many times in the past, legislative attempts to limit road building, to limit reconstruction of roads in our national forests. They cannot pass that. They cannot come before Congress and legislatively pass it. So they are doing this back-door approach through a rulemaking process on road management that there is no input. One can write one's comments, but there is not a meeting anywhere in the United States where people from the local national forest did come and confront the local forest people and say here is what we need roads for. Why cannot one reconstruct this one road that goes to our lake? Because they are going to put through an administrative rule underneath the Administrative Procedures Act. So I urge all Members to look at the roadless initiative. When one applies the road management on top of that roadless initiative, we have serious problems with what is going on in our national forests. I ask them to be vigilant and fight these policies by the National Forest Service. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), ranking member, for allowing the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and I to proceed outside of order. New Forest Service Policies/Rules (Decisions affecting National Forests; not found in Forest Management Plans; developed without local community & local forest officials input) roadless initiative (Includes defined Roadless Areas and undefined ``other unroaded'' areas) Wilderness Designation is proper role of Congress. Proposes undetermined ``other unroaded areas''. Limits access, use & enjoyment of forest. road management rule (Only if compelling reason for a road; no ``temp'' roads; EIS signed by Regional Forester) Virtually bans forest road construction & reconstruction. Only essential classified roads (no feeder roads). Does not recognize temporary roads for timber harvest. new policies/rules that supersede existing locally developed Forest Plans--Results National Policy--``one size-fits-all'' mentality, loss of local control. Economic Impact--not recognized, local economies depend on National Forests. New Policies/Rules--change established uses, access & activities. Amendment Offered By Mr. Dicks The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report copy B of the Dicks amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks: On page 52, after line 15, add the following new section: Sec. . Any limitation imposed under this Act on funds made available by this Act related to planning and management of national monuments, or activities related to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan shall not apply to any activity which is otherwise authorized by law. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House yesterday, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which would overcome section 334 and 335 of the Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. My amendment seeks to overcome the funding limitation imposed in the bill under section 334 and 335 relating to the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan, known as ICBEMP, and the design, planning, and management of national monuments. Both of these provisions are objectionable to the Clinton administration, and the committee has received a letter from the Office of Management and Budget director Jack Lew stating that the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto unless these riders are removed. Section 334 of the bill would stop the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, ICBEMP, from going forward. The author of the provision included report language to the bill language stating concern that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are not in compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Flexibility Act by completing a regulatory flexibility analysis. The administration, on the other hand, believes that such an analysis is not required. This is a major issue in this debate. Now, I understand that the author of the amendment may have concerns about the agencies complying with all laws, but I have been assured by the administration that they are, in fact, in compliance with all existing Federal laws and, therefore, object to the inclusion of this provision which would basically stop their work on this particular project. Further, I do not know whether the author of the amendment does or does not support the Columbia Basin Project's goals, but I think it is vitally important to articulate why it should go forward and not be stopped with a rider in this Interior appropriations bill. The Columbia Basin Project was initiated by President Clinton in 1993 to respond to landscape-scale issues, including forest and rangeland health, the listing of Snake River salmon, bull trout protection, and treaty and trust responsibilities to the Tribes in the area. It also sought to bring more certainty and stability to the communities located in the Columbia River Basin, which were impacted by these events. What we had before were literally dozens of smaller management plans that only addressed specific areas within the basin. The goal of ICBEMP was to better assemble each individual plan into a more coordinated watershed-based program. ICBEMP has several goals. Among them is to better protect the habitat important to threatened and endangered species and also to provide a long-term plan for mining, grazing, and timber harvest, all of which are still allowed under the project. It is not a land grab, nor does it take decisions out of the hands of local communities and local management offices. It is an important step to better manage these critical lands, and it has had several years in development and has received extensive public comments and participation. Section 335 prevents the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture from using any funds for the purpose of designing, planning, or management of Federal lands as national monuments which were designated since 1999. This provision attempts to restrict the designation of monuments by the President under the authority of the 1906 Antiquities Act by using a back-door method: funding limitation. A prohibition on spending funds for these monuments would not change their legal status, but it would prevent any ongoing spending within the monument areas as defined by law. I would say to all of my colleagues who had monuments declared, that the author of the amendment chose not to cover his monument, but he is covering our colleagues' monuments. The author of the amendment included language in the Interior Appropriations report to accompany the bill which states: ``Nothing in this language prevents either Secretary from managing these Federal lands under their previous management plans.'' But the bill language clearly states that no money shall be expended for the purpose of design, planning, or management of Federal lands as national monuments. Once the President has acted to designate these lands, they are legally designated and would thus be subject to the spending limitation. All this provision would do is ensure that no Federal dollars by our land and resource management agencies could be spent in these areas. A monument designation does not lock up these lands. Quite the contrary, monument status does not preclude such activities as grazing or mining. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.) Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, monument status also involves an extensive community involvement process so that programs can be established for all public uses. Hunting, fishing, hiking, canoeing are all allowed in these areas. But they would all be stopped if we could not do necessary wildlife surveys and environmental programs. This provision would not allow any funds to be spent for law enforcement [[Page H4501]] and staffing in the monument. In the areas where there are visitors' centers, they would be closed because the provision would preclude any funds from being spent to operate, maintain, or staff them. I understand that some of the President's recent designations have been controversial. But he has had, in each instance, the complete authority to act under the jurisdiction of the 1906 Antiquities Act. If the authorizing committees, and I note the presence of the chairman of the authorizing committee, if the authorizing committee of jurisdiction wishes to reexamine the Antiquities Act or wishes to pass legislation to cancel any specific monument designation, then they should do so. But the inclusion of this provision and the other provisions are ill- advised and ensure a veto by the President. I urge support of my amendment and hope the House agrees that these provisions should not be included in this bill. Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Nethercutt to the Amendment Offered By Mr. Dicks Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment to the amendment. The text of the amendment to the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 46 offered by Mr. Nethercutt to the amendment offered by Mr. Dicks: Strike ``monuments,'' and insert ``monuments or''. Strike ``, or activities related to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan''. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 14, 2000, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt). Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the Dicks amendment would strike the provision in the Dicks amendment concerning the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, called ICBEMP. First and foremost, the linkage of the national monuments portion of the Dicks amendment with the Interior-Columbia Basin Management Project language in his amendment requires that they be separated. They are not the same. They are completely different. They have no relevance to each other. They have no relationship to each other. Therefore, on that point alone, my amendment should be adopted. My amendment seeks to strip the ICBEMP language from the Dicks amendments. So that is point number one, and that is the simplest way to look at this whole issue. The second issue and the reason for removing it from the Dicks amendment is that this ICBEMP project was begun in 1993 as a scientific assessment of eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. Now, I want my colleagues and the chairman to keep this in mind, it started as a scientific assessment. We were going to take a look at the ecosystem condition of eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. The scientific findings were to be used as forest and Bureau of Land Management districts updated their land management plans. Since 1993, this administration has grown this project to a size that encompasses Idaho, western Montana, parts of Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. {time} 1100 Seven States, 144 million acres, are affected by what started out as an assessment informally. Even more troubling is that it has grown to a scope that it has now become a decision-making document with standards, meaning that the recommendations of the project managers will automatically amend the land use plans in the region. The seven-State region; 144 million acres. In 1998, the House had this issue before it. It voted to keep the Columbia Basin project advisory in nature. Not a rulemaking, not a decision-making document, but advisory. That language, which I sponsored and which was adopted by the House, rejected the idea that it should be more than advisory in nature. Unfortunately, in the negotiations on this whole issue at the last minute with respect to the omnibus appropriations, that language was sacrificed by the leadership and on the insistence of the President. Section 334 of the bill, language which I put in, requires the Forest Service and the BLM to comply with existing law. That is the second broad but important point in this whole debate. It requires this administration to follow existing law, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, prior to finalizing any interior Columbia Basin ecosystem management project record of decision. What is happening here, and those of us in the West understand this, is that this administration has time and time again tried to rush to judgment, to have a record of decision that will have the effect of law and that will affect dramatically the land use ability and land use of the western States, the seven western States which are part of this so- called study. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act passed overwhelmingly in this House, signed into law in 1996, requires agencies to do this simple task: Examine and mitigate for the impact that a proposed rule will have on small entities. This administration knows that the small entities, the small rural communities of eastern Washington and the seven western States that I mentioned, are impacted by this outside of the power that they have to stop it. So the only resource we have is to make sure that this administration complies with the law, and that is what this amendment does. It says before a record of decision is issued, Federal agencies must comply with the law that exists, that was signed into law by this President. I heard my friend from Washington say that he has an assurance from the administration that they do not have to comply with the law in this case; that this act does not apply to them. Only this administration would urge that the Congress ignore the obligation that this administration has to comply with the law. Only this administration would do that. So I am not persuaded by the assurance that we have been given that this law, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act does not apply. It applies, and there are court decisions that confirm that it applies. The General Accounting Office has issued a report confirming that it applies. This plan, the ICBEMP plan, is going to amend 62 individual land use plans in the West. It is going to amend land use plans on 32 national Forest Service and BLM administrative units in this project area. It will replace three interim strategies. The project is clearly a rule, and there are court decisions that say so. Failure to comply with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act is judicially reviewable by courts, and courts have invalidated agency rules on this basis, against Mr. Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, in 1998. Evidence is that the agencies have been wrong about this before. Over $56 million have been spent on this project. It is not authorized. This Congress has not authorized this project. The northwest industries have indicated to me that if a regulatory flexibility analysis is not completed, as required by law, and again that is all we are trying to do is have this administration comply with the law, they will pursue litigation which will throw this whole study into turmoil. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that the project does not leave itself open to litigation, if a record of decision is issued without having completed a regulatory flexibility analysis. This is overreaching by the administrative agencies of this government, by this administration, by the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the BLM. They are trying to go around the law, and that is wrong. That is wrong for rural America, it is wrong for the States that are represented in the West, and we should not let it happen. So this should be separated out from this amendment because it does not apply to the national monuments issue. It applies to the fairness and the obligation to small businesses to be [[Page H4502]] true to the law, and this administration is lacking in that regard if it tries to go forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my good friend and colleague that 7 years is hardly a rush to judgment. I want my colleagues to hear the language of this limitation in this appropriation bill. It says right here, ``None of the funds made available under this act may be used to issue a record of decision or any policy implementing the interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project not prepared pursuant to law, as set forth in chapter 6 of Title V of the United States Code.'' In all my years of being on the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, the relevance of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act has been somewhat questionable. But let us talk about the analysis that is done in an Environmental Impact Statement. It looks at the socioeconomic impact of the EIS. Now, either we can get serious and decide we want to really pass legislation, and this bill. Frankly, it is fatally flawed, but these limitations are objectionable to the administration every single year because they offend the process. We do not have hearings, we do not get into great detail on these things and, frankly, and the gentleman, of course, has been here for a number of years, but that is why we have authorizing committees and that is why in most instances we should let the authorizing committees deal with these substantive issues and not deal with them in the appropriations process. I think on both sides of the aisle there has been a consensus that we should not do these limitations unless there is just absolutely no other way to deal with the problem. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) in opposition to the Nethercutt amendment. Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time to speak against the Nethercutt amendment and in favor of the Dicks amendment. First, as it relates to what my friend from Spokane has advanced, I think it is important to allow the Columbia Basin Ecosystem plan to proceed. If adopted by this chamber, the Nethercutt amendment would retain the anti-environmental rider, which would block the implementation of this Pacific Northwest plan for forests, watersheds and endangered species. It is true that it has grown somewhat in terms of scope and dimension. It has done so because that is what has been dictated as in the best interests of the region that we all care about and in terms of what will make the most difference. Careful long-term planning is a help, not an impediment, to the various challenges that we face in the Pacific Northwest. I have heard my colleague more than once on this floor talk about the problems how this has stretched out over 7 years at a cost of $45 million. Well, adoption of this amendment, and subjecting yet another requirement to this plan, is only going to make the process more expensive and more time consuming. And, indeed, Congress itself is in no small measure a culprit. Every year that I have been here, since 1996, the Committee on Appropriations has been interfering with the orderly implementation of this review. Now, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) pointed out, the extension of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act to this study is something that has never before been required. It is vigorously disputed as to its applicability. But most important it opens up a very real possibility that we are going to block the potential Federal Government activity to improve the environmental and management activities in the Columbia River basin. It is going to make it more likely, not less likely, that a court is going to intervene, possibly issuing a decree that could mandate management plan changes and entirely halting the production of goods and services on Federal lands in project areas throughout its deliberations, and the variety of little pieces that are involved there. It is wrong. We ought to get on with this business. It has the greatest potential of solving some very real problems that we in the Pacific Northwest face. I would like to speak, if I could for a moment, to something that I consider even more insidious, and that is the underlying amendment that would include restrictions on the ability to have funding to implement the National Monuments Act. This is a major policy adjustment, as has been suggested by my colleague from Washington, and it would have severe, I hope unintended, consequences. Some may applaud at the prospect of not having law enforcement on our public lands, but that is an extreme position that would not be approved by my constituents, nor I think by the constituents of at least most of us in this Chamber. It is not going to do us any good to not be able to regulate off-road vehicles, law enforcement, mining, the grazing activities. This is categorically wrongheaded, and it is, in and of itself, why the administration will veto the bill. They would have no choice. But it is an example of the environmental extremism that we hear so often about on the other side of the aisle. If my colleagues do not like the Antiquities Act, they should go ahead and repeal it. If they do not like what the President has done in any specific designation, they should have the courage to bring a specific bill to Congress and undo it. They do not because these are popular actions, they are things that would be supported by this Chamber, and the environmental extremists on the other side of the aisle would rather play havoc with our ability to manage public land in an orderly fashion. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's point is right on target, as far as I am concerned. The gentleman mentioned this Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. According to the Department of the Interior, the House requires, under this amendment, the Federal Government to prepare analysis, to their knowledge, that has never been prepared for any land use planned effort, no matter its scope. As a result, the House action will unreasonably extend the duration of planning for this project, which, in part, due to requirements placed on the Federal Government by riders to every full year appropriation for Interior since 1996, has already taken 7 years to complete at considerable cost to the American taxpayer. The thing that I worry about is that we are going to get ourselves into the same mess we did before the forest plan was put into place, and that is that a Federal judge is going to say that we have not done the right things in terms of watershed protection, that we are not protecting these fish under the Endangered Species Act. He will stop all the logging, all the mining, all the grazing, and an injunction issue. And that is the worst possible outcome. So I am saying to the gentleman from Washington, who I do consider to be a friend and a thoughtful person, that it is time now to let this process go forward and finish this EIS and make the changes that are necessary to protect the bull trout, to protect the salmon runs on the Snake River, to make sure that we are doing the watershed protection so that we do not get the Endangered Species Act implemented in an adverse way in the gentleman's area. But we cannot simply do nothing. We cannot just say we have no plan, no strategy. I have supported both gentlemen from Washington on the issue of the Snake River dams. But if we are not going to take out the Snake River dams, then we have to do other things to protect the habitat, to deal with hatchery problems, to deal with harvest. And protecting the habitat is a major part of this requirement in order to protect these fish. I am going to let the gentlemen on the other side here have a chance, because I know the gentleman from Alabama is ready to go, but this amendment is offered in good constructive spirit. I think the strategy of trying to stop any change here is simply not going to work. It is going to wind up with the Endangered Species Act being applied by the Federal judges in a way none of us want, and so we have to make some hard decisions. [[Page H4503]] {time} 1115 We cannot say no to everything. That is why I supported the protection of the Hanford Reach. Because if we are not going to take out the dams, at least we will protect these salmon in the Hanford Reach. So I appreciate my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) yielding to me on this. This is something I feel very strongly about. I think the strategy here of continuing to delay this is a mistaken strategy, and that is why I offered this amendment. And I appreciate speaking on it. Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just conclude by expressing three things. First, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) in attempting to balance a very complex set of issues that we deal with in the Pacific Northwest. And oftentimes I know he must feel like he is the man in the middle. But I think he has addressed this in a direct and forthright manner. I do not think there is anybody in the Pacific Northwest who has worked harder to reach out to try to find middle ground and to avoid the catastrophe, I think, on all sides of these controversies. If we are going to cede our ability to plan in a thoughtful and manageable fashion and have it done on a piecemeal basis via the courts, I think we ought to move forward in terms of supporting what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has proposed. I want to make clear that, as far as the national monuments are concerned, my Republican colleagues have been in control here for the last 4 years, and they have been unable to fashion a compromise acceptable to the American public to go ahead and repeal this legislation. And we have been in fact left with, and I am pleased that we still have, an Antiquities Act that has been utilized by 14 Presidents over the course of the better part of this last century, since 1906, Republicans and Democrats alike. I think it would be a tragedy for this House to use this back-door attempt to try and take away a power to have disastrous consequences on lands that belong to the American public, and they want us to exercise this sort of stewardship. I would ask them to at least have the decency to bring forward legislation to repeal the Antiquities Act and do this in a straightforward fashion. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Utah. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and everybody on that side voted for two pieces of legislation to not repeal it but to take care of it. And what the gentleman has said and the other gentleman has said about law enforcement and other areas is just not true. What this does, if this gets through, all that ground will stay under the management plan it now has, which allows for law enforcement, which allows for cars. It does not make any changes whatsoever. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, that is simply not what the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service say. They say that once it is designated as a monument, this amendment applies. They cannot do law enforcement, they cannot do planning, they cannot take care of the visitor. They legally changed the designation and thus would be impacted. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would be happy if he would put in there to repeal that project. I would be very happy to have him do that. And when all else fails, read it and he will see he is wrong. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I am going to say this slowly to my friends on the other side just so we keep our eye on the ball here. This requires that the agencies of the Federal Government to deal in land management comply with the law. Talk about lawsuits. We are going to have big lawsuits if they do not comply with the law and adopt this amendment. That is what we are talking about here. The means to do justify the end. That is what this administration seems to want to do is just say, we do not care about the law, we just want to get this done. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Resources. Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, it has been an interesting conversation. I will stay away from the monuments, but we will talk about that later. We did vote on them on this floor. If the gentleman did not vote for it, he was not doing his duty. I am a little disappointed that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) opposes the Nethercutt amendment. The Nethercutt amendment does exactly what he says it does, it follows the law. I know the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) likes to follow the law. He goes to the State of Alaska and catches all my salmon. And the best thing I want to do is have the salmon reestablished on the Columbia River so he quits raiding my fish in Alaska. I mean, especially when he takes numerous amounts of those fish that I would like to take myself. I would like to suggest one thing. The Nethercutt amendment does exactly what is correct, following the laws that this Congress passed. But this administration has a great tendency to not to follow the law in any way, shape, or form. This is their habit. This is their MO. They care little about this Congress. We are going to do what we think is right and forget the people of America. Now, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) said it exactly right, the Columbia initiative was in fact a designation and a study on the Columbia River concerning mostly Oregon and Washington, Montana, Idaho, State River, Columbia River, etc.; and it is all being done by the agencies. And my colleagues want to have a decision that goes against the laws on the books today, a decision made by an administration that does not really follow the law? They want to include this Congress in that decision on how it will affect the local economy? They want to have a decision made now so we do not have further actions by the judicial branch? I am going to suggest, respectfully, if the Nethercutt amendment is not adopted it will end up in court and nothing will occur and no solution will be reached. So I am suggesting that the Nethercutt amendment is the right way to go. This is what should be done and will be done if we do what is right. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise in opposition to the Nethercutt amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is very poorly directed in a sense that if my colleagues are complaining about whether or not it is too expensive, I think this amendment only makes this process far more expensive. I think, also, the amendment is targeted at trying to declare the Basin Management Plan something that it is not, and that is that it is not a regulatory process, it is a management plan. All of us have gone through this. We have gone through this in the Sierra Mountains, where we have known that we cannot deal with this on an individualized little watershed bill; we have got to look at the entire ecosystem. In California we just completed with the governor and the Secretary of Interior the Cal Fed plan. Why? Because if we do not do that, it is very clear that all the pieces in and of themselves are deficient and they are deficient so we end up shutting down the water system in California, whether it is the irrigation system for our farmers, whether it is the drinking water for our cities, because the system cannot be operated in such a fashion. In order to stave that off, we engaged in comprehensive basin management just as we are talking about on the Columbia River. Because the gentleman from Washington is right, if we stop this process, if we kill this process, then we go back to the status quo. And [[Page H4504]] the status quo, it is a no-brainer for a court to put them right back into the situation that they are in on the other side of the mountains, on the western side, where they had chaos, where they had just chaos ruling in terms of whether people lost their jobs or communities did not do well or whether the forests were harvested or not harvested. This is a chance to get ahead of that curve. They spent $15 million trying to get ahead of that curve. They had endless meetings with local towns and communities and political subdivisions and all of that. And the question is, can they come up with a plan so they can continue to improve this, may continue the viability of the basin. This is no different than what we are confronting all over the West. And we are doing it so that we can escape the chaos of individualized slapping down of endangered species problems and all the rest of that. Because that is why this plan came into being, because we know what we can front down the road. So it is very easy that if they stop this, in fact, the evidence is so clear on its face that the judge simply decides that they cannot provide the level of management to provide the kinds of protections that are necessary to the habitat, to the watersheds, to the species; and, therefore, they are back into chaos. And it is difficult. We have been at this a number of years in California with the Cal Fed process. As difficult as it is, all parts of the puzzle recognize that, with a comprehensive management plan, they in fact are in a better place than what they would be. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with the fact about how complicated and difficult these are to work through. I think we would all agree on that. But what I keep hearing is how ICBEMP is going to resolve this issue just as the Northwest Forest Plan was resolved on the West side. Is the gentleman arguing that the Northwest Forest Plan is a success and has met its goals? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am arguing that what we have learned is that, absent comprehensive plans that address all facets of the various large basins, the large systems, whether it is the Sierra or the Columbia River or the California water system, absent that, what they get is they get back into chaos because the individual attempts are not sufficient to provide the level of protection. So they find themselves with the court running their systems as opposed to the political leadership and the local communities. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say this. We have been through this. On the West side, we were enjoined by the Federal judge, no timber harvesting. Zero. The new administration came in and held a summit in Portland, and nobody was entirely pleased with the outcome, but we got the injunctions lifted. We got some timber harvest restored. We got a $1.2 billion-a-year plan to help the communities deal with these problems. And we moved on. What we are talking about here with the Nethercutt amendment is going back to the way we used to do business, and that way is going to lead us to the Federal Court's injunction. And, again, he is going to hurt his own people. That is why I do not understand why he is doing this. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Because, as my colleague knows, the court is back saying the plan that has been put forward after that has been done on the Northwest Forest Plan is still not in compliance. Because the survey and manage requirements that were shoved in in the dark of night by this administration says the Forest Service has been unable and may indeed be incapable of meeting. We still are not achieving the goals of that plan. My point in this debate right here, right now, is that to use that as an example of success is not fair when it has been a failure. I agree we have got to have the science in place. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that is the case. Listen, they are going to continue to challenge us on Cal Fed from either side, from the agricultural side and from the environmental side. They will continue to challenge us on the Sierra plan. But the fact that they have a plan in place allows the judge to look at that in a much different fashion than if they have nothing in place so the judge can then tinker with the plan, but they are not back into wholesale injuctions on an eco-wide system. So that plan is serious, serious insulation from going back to where they were. I mean, maybe time has erased our memory what was going on in the Northwest. But take ourselves back to the late 1980s and 1990s, we had total chaos. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, so what he is arguing is that, if we are going to err at all, we need to err on the side of following the law. Right? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. No. The gentleman can say whatever he wants to say. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. But the General Accounting Office, in 1997, says that this does constitute a rule in their opinion and, therefore, this small business would follow. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, and obviously, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture seriously disagree with that. Let us not pretend that they do not. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just say to my friend from California, not from the Northwest, this is not killing the process at all. We are just requiring that the agencies of the Government comply with the law. The means do not justify the end. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules. {time} 1130 Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend from Eastern Washington for all the work that he has been doing on this issue. I do enjoy working with my friend from western Washington. We have worked on a lot of issues together that is obviously important to my district. I do appreciate that very much. But on this issue, obviously there is a basic difference as to how we should approach our economy and our resources in our given area. It is an honest difference of opinion, I think. What I find very interesting in the arguments that I have heard heretofore from my friend from western Washington and my friend from Oregon, they were saying that if we do not like this process by going through the appropriation process, we ought to use the authorizing process. I have always been a proponent of that, but I would make this point very clear. ICBEMP was never authorized. It was done at a time in 1993 when that side of the aisle controlled both houses of the Congress and for some reason they felt that they did not need to authorize this project. It was put in an appropriations bill and now we are living with the consequences of something that has grown from $5 million now to $56 million. It has kind of grown like Topsy and it has grown in scope, too. Let me make a couple of points that were made by those on the other side as far as their arguments. In his opening remarks, my friend from western Washington was saying that in the planning process, the ICBEMP provides more certainty and it does not take planning out of the local jurisdictions. I would just make this observation. This ICBEMP as it has been expanded in this time period covers some 105 counties in those seven States. Not one of those counties has passed a resolution in support of ICBEMP. In fact, to the contrary, 65 of those counties have passed resolutions in opposition to ICBEMP for the very reason opposite of what the gentleman said, they are concerned that this affects their planning process. [[Page H4505]] Again, this seems to be a pattern from this administration that we will have these meetings that has been mentioned a number of times, but at the end of the day we are not going to listen to the concerns of those at the local level. That seems to be a pattern over and over and over. What are the reasons why? I can state one of my large counties in my district, why they are concerned about the Federal Government doing this planning and governing in one area, in the northern part of my district in Okanogan County. They are concerned about how the Forest Service is addressing the issue of noxious weeds. They are not addressing the issue of noxious weeds in the forest land. That is going over into the private lands and it is putting a burden on the taxpayers in that area to fund the noxious weed board. That is just one example why they have a concern about the Federal Government taking over this planning. Finally, I would like to as far as the resource part of it make this observation, because the Endangered Species Act has been a threat, that if we do not do this, the Endangered Species Act is going to preempt everything, and we will end up in a bad situation. I would make this observation, that unless we listen to the local people that are affected, we are going to be in worse shape than we ever possibly think we could. Because it seems to me the implicit idea or thought process of this administration is to not trust those that are elected at the local level to make decisions. I find that, frankly, wrong. There is another example in my district where local people have worked together trying to comply with the Endangered Species Act as it is written right now through the HCP process. That was signed a couple of years ago by the Chelan and Douglas County PUDs. It still has not gone through the whole NEPA process yet, but they are very confident that if they go through that process, they can live to the letter of the law with the Endangered Species Act. I for one, by the way, think that the Endangered Species Act ought to be changed, but in the letter of the law they can. Why? Because this is local people working together to come to a solution. But ICBEMP, the way it is structured and what we have seen does not allow for that to happen. Finally, from the regulatory standpoint here with my friend from eastern Washington's amendment. This area that we are talking about is largely an agricultural area. There is no huge urban area like Portland, Oregon or like Tacoma or like the Bay Area in California. There is no large urban area like that. It is largely agriculture. If we do not know what the impact is going to be on the farm implement dealers or the farm chemical dealers or the food processors who are largely smaller businesses in that area, then we are not doing a service to those that are going to be affected. That is all that this amendment does, is to say, let us put everything into the mix and follow the law. After all, this is an unauthorized project. If the concern is that it goes for one more year, what is wrong with that, as long as we get it right? Because this will have a big impact on my constituents. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my friend from eastern Washington's amendment. I think it is the right thing to do in order to clarify where ICBEMP is going. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill). (Mr. HILL of Montana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HILL of Montana. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, my constituents are deeply concerned about this interior Columbia Basin management plan. They see this as kind of a classical bait and switch that occurred. Basically what happened is that the Clinton administration proposed this study as a scientific assessment so that we would have a regionwide science that could be applied to the individual forests for the development and the renewal of the individual forest management plans. In the process, the administration went to the local governments and solicited their input and their participation and invited them to participate in the process. As a consequence of that, there was pretty broad support for doing this scientific assessment, because, as the gentleman from California pointed out, it was necessary for us to be able to have local forest management plans, to have regionwide science in the development of those plans. But along the way, things changed. The administration decided that it was going to shift this from a scientific assessment to a decision- making document. What does that mean? It means that the standards and the rules and regulations that would be determined in interior Columbia Basin would be imposed on the local forests. The consequence of that is that now the individual forests cannot make individual forest management decisions. They have to comply with an increasing number of standards and rules and regulations that are on a regionwide basis. We have heard some talk out here about the success of this in a narrow regional area west of the Cascades. But, Mr. Chairman, the forests and the BLM lands that are being impacted by interior Columbia Basin are diverse. The species of trees is diverse. The elevations are diverse. The amount of rainfall that occurs is diverse. There is little similarity in these forests except that they are all part of the Columbia River drainage. In any event, the administration then determined that it was going to basically override the intent of Congress. Congress has said it wants forest management, land management decisions made locally by making an overriding regional decision document. The problem today is that this Interior-Columbia Basin issue and the Reg Flex issue is kind of caught up in a bigger set of issues. Because right now we have the designation of national monuments going on, the roadless forest initiative going on, mineral and oil and gas withdrawals of the Clinton administration, proposals to breach the dams on the Snake River and ICBEMP all occurring at one time. It is no wonder that the people in this region feel like there is a war being declared on them with all these things happening. What the gentleman from Washington's amendment is trying to do is deal with just one narrow area. That says that if ICBEMP is going to go through and it is going to be a decision-making document, then let us make sure that it complies with all the laws. If the goal of this device is to eliminate injunctions in court overriding local decisions, then it has to comply with all the law. That is what this amendment intends to do. I urge the support of the amendment. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) who is a valued member of the subcommittee. Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, one of the more unfortunate aspects of the present majority's rule of this House over the last several years has been this propensity to attach antienvironmental riders to appropriations bills. Essentially that is what we have here today in this particular context. Seven years ago, the administration embarked upon a plan to improve environmental management in the Columbia River Basin. All of the land affected by this plan, by the way, and very importantly, is public land. It is not private land. It is public land. It is land owned by all of the people of the country. So my constituents in New York as well as every constituent of every Member of this House has a stake in the development of this plan to manage important public resources in the Columbia River basin. That project has gone forward. It has gone forward very carefully, very intelligently, and in a very open way. An environmental impact statement has been produced. A supplemental environmental impact statement has been produced. All of the activities here have been based on good, sound, responsible science. The intention is to improve habitat in the Columbia River, to improve habitat for bull trout, for salmon, to improve recreational resources, to improve timber resources, and to have a comprehensive plan which will stand and which will allow people all across the spectrum, from recreational uses all across the spectrum to extracted uses to be able to use this public land in the most effective and efficient way. Now we have this amendment to the Dicks amendment which would block [[Page H4506]] implementation of this Pacific Northwest plan for forest watersheds and endangered species. It would do so by attempting to superimpose an aspect of the small business law onto the environmental law, to take one piece of a law and inappropriately attach it to a situation where it does not belong, has no standing, has no meaning and makes no sense. Therefore alone, for that reason alone, just on the structural basis of it, the technical aspects of it, this amendment ought to be rejected. But it ought to be rejected on much more solid ground and much more important ground, and that is this, we are here discussing the future of a very important part of America. Again, I emphasize, a part owned by all of the citizens of this country, held in trust by the Federal Government, administered by the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies within the Department of the Interior. Now, everybody has a responsibility to make sure that this works and this antienvironmental rider inappropriately attached to this bill ought to be very soundly and solidly rejected. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that just because someone says that it is an antienvironmental rider does not mean that it is. This is complying with the law. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) who is from the region that is affected by this study, not from outside our region. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to follow somebody from New York who has a district along the river much like the Columbia River, the Hudson River. There is a lot of similarity there. The difference is they do not have this kind of a planning process in place by the Federal Government, ICBEMP. I want to talk for a moment, Mr. Chairman, about the relationship of this requirement for this rule. The GAO, the General Accounting Office general counsel wrote in July of 1997 a letter to Congress that a national forest land and resource management plan generally was considered a rule for the purposes of this Small Business Regulatory Act. Failure to comply with this act is judicially reviewable and courts have invalidated agency rules on this basis. All we are asking here is for this administration to follow the law. And if there is a question about whether this is legal or not, would it not be time for this administration to err on the side of following the law if there is a question? Would that not be refreshing? Mr. Chairman, let me talk for a moment about the monument issue, because we have heard a lot about the Antiquities Act. I have a copy of the relevant statute here. Let me read from it, that ``any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument or any object of an antiquity situated on the lands owned or controlled by the government of the United States.'' {time} 1145 That is what we are talking about, these objects, these archeological fines. It goes on to say, that the Government may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. And then it goes on to talking about archeological sites, small little objects, and we are going to protect the land around it. Ladie

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 15, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4498-H4567] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Pursuant to House Resolution 524 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4578. {time} 1039 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4578) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday June 14, 2000, the amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) had been disposed of and the bill [[Page H4499]] was open for amendment from page 53 line 10 through page 53 line 22. Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, the amendment by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), adding a new section at the end of title I, if offered, shall begin with his initial 5-minute speech in support of the amendment. No further debate on that amendment shall be in order. Amendments to that amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) or the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), each shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence of both the chairman and the ranking member to allow me to speak out of turn. The reason I would like to address the House this morning is with respect to the roadless forest initiative. My colleague and friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), had originally looked at introducing some limitation amendments on the roadless forest initiative and as he will say shortly has decided not to introduce them. In some ways I regret that but I certainly respect his decision. I rise in opposition to the roadless forest initiative. I represent a national forest that was once the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forest. Like so many others, I have a concern over the effect of the roadless forest initiative on the economy of my district and the health and safety of our national forests. I would like to make three brief quick points this morning to show the breadth of opposition in my home area to this roadless forest initiative. First, local units of government in the State of Wisconsin in general, and in the Eighth Congressional District, oppose the roadless forest initiative. The Wisconsin Counties Association opposes it. The Counties of Vilas and Oneida and Oconto and others oppose it. They oppose it because they understand how dependent our communities and our economy is upon the national forest, recreation, and timber harvesting. They also oppose it because they recognize that cutting off these forests to human access poses substantial fire and safety risks. Point number two, the roadless forest initiative violates a historic compact between local units of government and the Federal Government. This national forest in northern Wisconsin was created in the 1920s. There were a series of transactions between local units of government, county forests, the private sector and the Federal Government. On record, on the public record and in public documents, specifically these transactions were made with an understanding that access to the national forests would be maintained, in fact, explicitly that commercial access to the forests would be maintained. Yet, the roadless forest initiative, if it is implemented, would break that understanding, would break that agreement. Very clearly, the Federal Government is on the verge of breaking its word with the people of northeastern Wisconsin and very clearly these local leaders would never, would never, have transferred county forest to the national forest if they knew that years down the line we would go back on our word. Finally and most damning, the Forest Service employees of northern Wisconsin themselves oppose the roadless forest initiative. The very people being called upon to implement the roadless forest initiative oppose it. They have taken a formal position through Local 2165 of the National Federation of Federal Employees, they have taken a formal position against the roadless forest initiative. They understand the difficulties of enforcing it. They understand how it will do tremendous damage to our way of life and they understand how the roadless forest initiative has failed to take into account the local concerns in northern Wisconsin. I will later place in the Record these resolutions demonstrating the clear opposition in northern Wisconsin to this initiative. Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) indicated, we were prepared to offer up to several amendments to block the roadless initiative and the road management rule. Instead, through conversations with the Chair and the ranking member, we have decided not to. These policies and rules that are currently pending before the National Forest Service are still pending. We will have time in the months ahead to help fashion and mold hopefully something we can all live with. Let me just take a few minutes here and explain what is going on with the roadless initiative and the road management policy. {time} 1045 These are new Forest Service policies. They are decisions affecting the national forests throughout the country. They are not found in any of the local-national forest management plans, and they are developed without a local input and without local forest officials' input. Now, the roadless initiative on the face of it does not sound too bad, because it includes defined roadless areas. In my two national forests in Ottawa, that is 4,600 acres and in the Hiawatha National Forest, that is 7,600 acres. We could probably agree that, in those areas that are identified, it makes some sense not to put roads; and we agree that could make some sense. But then it calls for other unroaded areas, other unroaded areas. We do not know the size of those areas. We do not know where they are located. It cannot be simply identified. So if we cannot identify the other unroaded areas, why would we let a policy go through and we as Members of this Congress allow a policy to go through that we have no clue, no clue where these other areas are. Talk to Washington officials, they say one's local officials know. Talk to our local forest officials, and we have had hearings on this part, and they said we do not know because we do not have the guidelines. So they would let a policy go through. Look, the proper role on roadless initiative, identify the areas; and if one wants it to be a wilderness area, that is a proper role of Congress. We should do it. Proposals undetermine other roaded areas. It limits one's access. It limits one's use. It limits one's enjoyment of the forest. If it was the roadless initiative, we could probably live with that, but look at what else is going on at the same time. At the exact time is this thing called road management rule. The only way one can build a road in the national forest if this road management rule goes through is if there is a compelling reason for a road. Temporary roads that we use and rely on for fire fighting, for insect control, for harvesting timber are not recognized. No more temporary roads, none whatsoever. Who has to agree to it? Not the local foresters, but the regional forester. In Milwaukee, they are going to decide for Michigan and Wisconsin whether or not there is going to be a road in northern Michigan regardless of what the local forestry officials say. So it virtually bans road construction and reconstruction. So in other words, one cannot even fix up a forest road if this policy goes through, only essential classified roads, no feeder roads, no feeder roads. It does not recognize temporary roads for forest timbers. So put the roadless initiative with this road management rule that no one knows anything about, put it together, and one has new policies, new rules that will supersede existing locally developed forest management plans in our national forest. The results are one is going to have a national policy that says one size fits all. We lose our local control. There is no control input. Economic impact is not even recognized. For northern Wisconsin and northern Michigan and Minnesota, we rely upon our national forests, not just for timber sales, for recreation, no personal enjoyment, for hunting; but one has no input. Those economies are not even recognized as we develop these policies. Last but not least, the new policies and rules change the established use of the forest, the access to the forest, and the activities that can be performed within the forest. [[Page H4500]] What we have here, as we have debated this bill many times in the past, legislative attempts to limit road building, to limit reconstruction of roads in our national forests. They cannot pass that. They cannot come before Congress and legislatively pass it. So they are doing this back-door approach through a rulemaking process on road management that there is no input. One can write one's comments, but there is not a meeting anywhere in the United States where people from the local national forest did come and confront the local forest people and say here is what we need roads for. Why cannot one reconstruct this one road that goes to our lake? Because they are going to put through an administrative rule underneath the Administrative Procedures Act. So I urge all Members to look at the roadless initiative. When one applies the road management on top of that roadless initiative, we have serious problems with what is going on in our national forests. I ask them to be vigilant and fight these policies by the National Forest Service. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), ranking member, for allowing the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and I to proceed outside of order. New Forest Service Policies/Rules (Decisions affecting National Forests; not found in Forest Management Plans; developed without local community & local forest officials input) roadless initiative (Includes defined Roadless Areas and undefined ``other unroaded'' areas) Wilderness Designation is proper role of Congress. Proposes undetermined ``other unroaded areas''. Limits access, use & enjoyment of forest. road management rule (Only if compelling reason for a road; no ``temp'' roads; EIS signed by Regional Forester) Virtually bans forest road construction & reconstruction. Only essential classified roads (no feeder roads). Does not recognize temporary roads for timber harvest. new policies/rules that supersede existing locally developed Forest Plans--Results National Policy--``one size-fits-all'' mentality, loss of local control. Economic Impact--not recognized, local economies depend on National Forests. New Policies/Rules--change established uses, access & activities. Amendment Offered By Mr. Dicks The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report copy B of the Dicks amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks: On page 52, after line 15, add the following new section: Sec. . Any limitation imposed under this Act on funds made available by this Act related to planning and management of national monuments, or activities related to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan shall not apply to any activity which is otherwise authorized by law. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House yesterday, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which would overcome section 334 and 335 of the Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. My amendment seeks to overcome the funding limitation imposed in the bill under section 334 and 335 relating to the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan, known as ICBEMP, and the design, planning, and management of national monuments. Both of these provisions are objectionable to the Clinton administration, and the committee has received a letter from the Office of Management and Budget director Jack Lew stating that the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto unless these riders are removed. Section 334 of the bill would stop the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, ICBEMP, from going forward. The author of the provision included report language to the bill language stating concern that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are not in compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Flexibility Act by completing a regulatory flexibility analysis. The administration, on the other hand, believes that such an analysis is not required. This is a major issue in this debate. Now, I understand that the author of the amendment may have concerns about the agencies complying with all laws, but I have been assured by the administration that they are, in fact, in compliance with all existing Federal laws and, therefore, object to the inclusion of this provision which would basically stop their work on this particular project. Further, I do not know whether the author of the amendment does or does not support the Columbia Basin Project's goals, but I think it is vitally important to articulate why it should go forward and not be stopped with a rider in this Interior appropriations bill. The Columbia Basin Project was initiated by President Clinton in 1993 to respond to landscape-scale issues, including forest and rangeland health, the listing of Snake River salmon, bull trout protection, and treaty and trust responsibilities to the Tribes in the area. It also sought to bring more certainty and stability to the communities located in the Columbia River Basin, which were impacted by these events. What we had before were literally dozens of smaller management plans that only addressed specific areas within the basin. The goal of ICBEMP was to better assemble each individual plan into a more coordinated watershed-based program. ICBEMP has several goals. Among them is to better protect the habitat important to threatened and endangered species and also to provide a long-term plan for mining, grazing, and timber harvest, all of which are still allowed under the project. It is not a land grab, nor does it take decisions out of the hands of local communities and local management offices. It is an important step to better manage these critical lands, and it has had several years in development and has received extensive public comments and participation. Section 335 prevents the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture from using any funds for the purpose of designing, planning, or management of Federal lands as national monuments which were designated since 1999. This provision attempts to restrict the designation of monuments by the President under the authority of the 1906 Antiquities Act by using a back-door method: funding limitation. A prohibition on spending funds for these monuments would not change their legal status, but it would prevent any ongoing spending within the monument areas as defined by law. I would say to all of my colleagues who had monuments declared, that the author of the amendment chose not to cover his monument, but he is covering our colleagues' monuments. The author of the amendment included language in the Interior Appropriations report to accompany the bill which states: ``Nothing in this language prevents either Secretary from managing these Federal lands under their previous management plans.'' But the bill language clearly states that no money shall be expended for the purpose of design, planning, or management of Federal lands as national monuments. Once the President has acted to designate these lands, they are legally designated and would thus be subject to the spending limitation. All this provision would do is ensure that no Federal dollars by our land and resource management agencies could be spent in these areas. A monument designation does not lock up these lands. Quite the contrary, monument status does not preclude such activities as grazing or mining. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.) Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, monument status also involves an extensive community involvement process so that programs can be established for all public uses. Hunting, fishing, hiking, canoeing are all allowed in these areas. But they would all be stopped if we could not do necessary wildlife surveys and environmental programs. This provision would not allow any funds to be spent for law enforcement [[Page H4501]] and staffing in the monument. In the areas where there are visitors' centers, they would be closed because the provision would preclude any funds from being spent to operate, maintain, or staff them. I understand that some of the President's recent designations have been controversial. But he has had, in each instance, the complete authority to act under the jurisdiction of the 1906 Antiquities Act. If the authorizing committees, and I note the presence of the chairman of the authorizing committee, if the authorizing committee of jurisdiction wishes to reexamine the Antiquities Act or wishes to pass legislation to cancel any specific monument designation, then they should do so. But the inclusion of this provision and the other provisions are ill- advised and ensure a veto by the President. I urge support of my amendment and hope the House agrees that these provisions should not be included in this bill. Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Nethercutt to the Amendment Offered By Mr. Dicks Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment to the amendment. The text of the amendment to the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 46 offered by Mr. Nethercutt to the amendment offered by Mr. Dicks: Strike ``monuments,'' and insert ``monuments or''. Strike ``, or activities related to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan''. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 14, 2000, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt). Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the Dicks amendment would strike the provision in the Dicks amendment concerning the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, called ICBEMP. First and foremost, the linkage of the national monuments portion of the Dicks amendment with the Interior-Columbia Basin Management Project language in his amendment requires that they be separated. They are not the same. They are completely different. They have no relevance to each other. They have no relationship to each other. Therefore, on that point alone, my amendment should be adopted. My amendment seeks to strip the ICBEMP language from the Dicks amendments. So that is point number one, and that is the simplest way to look at this whole issue. The second issue and the reason for removing it from the Dicks amendment is that this ICBEMP project was begun in 1993 as a scientific assessment of eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. Now, I want my colleagues and the chairman to keep this in mind, it started as a scientific assessment. We were going to take a look at the ecosystem condition of eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. The scientific findings were to be used as forest and Bureau of Land Management districts updated their land management plans. Since 1993, this administration has grown this project to a size that encompasses Idaho, western Montana, parts of Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. {time} 1100 Seven States, 144 million acres, are affected by what started out as an assessment informally. Even more troubling is that it has grown to a scope that it has now become a decision-making document with standards, meaning that the recommendations of the project managers will automatically amend the land use plans in the region. The seven-State region; 144 million acres. In 1998, the House had this issue before it. It voted to keep the Columbia Basin project advisory in nature. Not a rulemaking, not a decision-making document, but advisory. That language, which I sponsored and which was adopted by the House, rejected the idea that it should be more than advisory in nature. Unfortunately, in the negotiations on this whole issue at the last minute with respect to the omnibus appropriations, that language was sacrificed by the leadership and on the insistence of the President. Section 334 of the bill, language which I put in, requires the Forest Service and the BLM to comply with existing law. That is the second broad but important point in this whole debate. It requires this administration to follow existing law, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, prior to finalizing any interior Columbia Basin ecosystem management project record of decision. What is happening here, and those of us in the West understand this, is that this administration has time and time again tried to rush to judgment, to have a record of decision that will have the effect of law and that will affect dramatically the land use ability and land use of the western States, the seven western States which are part of this so- called study. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act passed overwhelmingly in this House, signed into law in 1996, requires agencies to do this simple task: Examine and mitigate for the impact that a proposed rule will have on small entities. This administration knows that the small entities, the small rural communities of eastern Washington and the seven western States that I mentioned, are impacted by this outside of the power that they have to stop it. So the only resource we have is to make sure that this administration complies with the law, and that is what this amendment does. It says before a record of decision is issued, Federal agencies must comply with the law that exists, that was signed into law by this President. I heard my friend from Washington say that he has an assurance from the administration that they do not have to comply with the law in this case; that this act does not apply to them. Only this administration would urge that the Congress ignore the obligation that this administration has to comply with the law. Only this administration would do that. So I am not persuaded by the assurance that we have been given that this law, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act does not apply. It applies, and there are court decisions that confirm that it applies. The General Accounting Office has issued a report confirming that it applies. This plan, the ICBEMP plan, is going to amend 62 individual land use plans in the West. It is going to amend land use plans on 32 national Forest Service and BLM administrative units in this project area. It will replace three interim strategies. The project is clearly a rule, and there are court decisions that say so. Failure to comply with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act is judicially reviewable by courts, and courts have invalidated agency rules on this basis, against Mr. Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, in 1998. Evidence is that the agencies have been wrong about this before. Over $56 million have been spent on this project. It is not authorized. This Congress has not authorized this project. The northwest industries have indicated to me that if a regulatory flexibility analysis is not completed, as required by law, and again that is all we are trying to do is have this administration comply with the law, they will pursue litigation which will throw this whole study into turmoil. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that the project does not leave itself open to litigation, if a record of decision is issued without having completed a regulatory flexibility analysis. This is overreaching by the administrative agencies of this government, by this administration, by the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the BLM. They are trying to go around the law, and that is wrong. That is wrong for rural America, it is wrong for the States that are represented in the West, and we should not let it happen. So this should be separated out from this amendment because it does not apply to the national monuments issue. It applies to the fairness and the obligation to small businesses to be [[Page H4502]] true to the law, and this administration is lacking in that regard if it tries to go forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my good friend and colleague that 7 years is hardly a rush to judgment. I want my colleagues to hear the language of this limitation in this appropriation bill. It says right here, ``None of the funds made available under this act may be used to issue a record of decision or any policy implementing the interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project not prepared pursuant to law, as set forth in chapter 6 of Title V of the United States Code.'' In all my years of being on the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, the relevance of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act has been somewhat questionable. But let us talk about the analysis that is done in an Environmental Impact Statement. It looks at the socioeconomic impact of the EIS. Now, either we can get serious and decide we want to really pass legislation, and this bill. Frankly, it is fatally flawed, but these limitations are objectionable to the administration every single year because they offend the process. We do not have hearings, we do not get into great detail on these things and, frankly, and the gentleman, of course, has been here for a number of years, but that is why we have authorizing committees and that is why in most instances we should let the authorizing committees deal with these substantive issues and not deal with them in the appropriations process. I think on both sides of the aisle there has been a consensus that we should not do these limitations unless there is just absolutely no other way to deal with the problem. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) in opposition to the Nethercutt amendment. Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time to speak against the Nethercutt amendment and in favor of the Dicks amendment. First, as it relates to what my friend from Spokane has advanced, I think it is important to allow the Columbia Basin Ecosystem plan to proceed. If adopted by this chamber, the Nethercutt amendment would retain the anti-environmental rider, which would block the implementation of this Pacific Northwest plan for forests, watersheds and endangered species. It is true that it has grown somewhat in terms of scope and dimension. It has done so because that is what has been dictated as in the best interests of the region that we all care about and in terms of what will make the most difference. Careful long-term planning is a help, not an impediment, to the various challenges that we face in the Pacific Northwest. I have heard my colleague more than once on this floor talk about the problems how this has stretched out over 7 years at a cost of $45 million. Well, adoption of this amendment, and subjecting yet another requirement to this plan, is only going to make the process more expensive and more time consuming. And, indeed, Congress itself is in no small measure a culprit. Every year that I have been here, since 1996, the Committee on Appropriations has been interfering with the orderly implementation of this review. Now, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) pointed out, the extension of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act to this study is something that has never before been required. It is vigorously disputed as to its applicability. But most important it opens up a very real possibility that we are going to block the potential Federal Government activity to improve the environmental and management activities in the Columbia River basin. It is going to make it more likely, not less likely, that a court is going to intervene, possibly issuing a decree that could mandate management plan changes and entirely halting the production of goods and services on Federal lands in project areas throughout its deliberations, and the variety of little pieces that are involved there. It is wrong. We ought to get on with this business. It has the greatest potential of solving some very real problems that we in the Pacific Northwest face. I would like to speak, if I could for a moment, to something that I consider even more insidious, and that is the underlying amendment that would include restrictions on the ability to have funding to implement the National Monuments Act. This is a major policy adjustment, as has been suggested by my colleague from Washington, and it would have severe, I hope unintended, consequences. Some may applaud at the prospect of not having law enforcement on our public lands, but that is an extreme position that would not be approved by my constituents, nor I think by the constituents of at least most of us in this Chamber. It is not going to do us any good to not be able to regulate off-road vehicles, law enforcement, mining, the grazing activities. This is categorically wrongheaded, and it is, in and of itself, why the administration will veto the bill. They would have no choice. But it is an example of the environmental extremism that we hear so often about on the other side of the aisle. If my colleagues do not like the Antiquities Act, they should go ahead and repeal it. If they do not like what the President has done in any specific designation, they should have the courage to bring a specific bill to Congress and undo it. They do not because these are popular actions, they are things that would be supported by this Chamber, and the environmental extremists on the other side of the aisle would rather play havoc with our ability to manage public land in an orderly fashion. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's point is right on target, as far as I am concerned. The gentleman mentioned this Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. According to the Department of the Interior, the House requires, under this amendment, the Federal Government to prepare analysis, to their knowledge, that has never been prepared for any land use planned effort, no matter its scope. As a result, the House action will unreasonably extend the duration of planning for this project, which, in part, due to requirements placed on the Federal Government by riders to every full year appropriation for Interior since 1996, has already taken 7 years to complete at considerable cost to the American taxpayer. The thing that I worry about is that we are going to get ourselves into the same mess we did before the forest plan was put into place, and that is that a Federal judge is going to say that we have not done the right things in terms of watershed protection, that we are not protecting these fish under the Endangered Species Act. He will stop all the logging, all the mining, all the grazing, and an injunction issue. And that is the worst possible outcome. So I am saying to the gentleman from Washington, who I do consider to be a friend and a thoughtful person, that it is time now to let this process go forward and finish this EIS and make the changes that are necessary to protect the bull trout, to protect the salmon runs on the Snake River, to make sure that we are doing the watershed protection so that we do not get the Endangered Species Act implemented in an adverse way in the gentleman's area. But we cannot simply do nothing. We cannot just say we have no plan, no strategy. I have supported both gentlemen from Washington on the issue of the Snake River dams. But if we are not going to take out the Snake River dams, then we have to do other things to protect the habitat, to deal with hatchery problems, to deal with harvest. And protecting the habitat is a major part of this requirement in order to protect these fish. I am going to let the gentlemen on the other side here have a chance, because I know the gentleman from Alabama is ready to go, but this amendment is offered in good constructive spirit. I think the strategy of trying to stop any change here is simply not going to work. It is going to wind up with the Endangered Species Act being applied by the Federal judges in a way none of us want, and so we have to make some hard decisions. [[Page H4503]] {time} 1115 We cannot say no to everything. That is why I supported the protection of the Hanford Reach. Because if we are not going to take out the dams, at least we will protect these salmon in the Hanford Reach. So I appreciate my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) yielding to me on this. This is something I feel very strongly about. I think the strategy here of continuing to delay this is a mistaken strategy, and that is why I offered this amendment. And I appreciate speaking on it. Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just conclude by expressing three things. First, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) in attempting to balance a very complex set of issues that we deal with in the Pacific Northwest. And oftentimes I know he must feel like he is the man in the middle. But I think he has addressed this in a direct and forthright manner. I do not think there is anybody in the Pacific Northwest who has worked harder to reach out to try to find middle ground and to avoid the catastrophe, I think, on all sides of these controversies. If we are going to cede our ability to plan in a thoughtful and manageable fashion and have it done on a piecemeal basis via the courts, I think we ought to move forward in terms of supporting what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has proposed. I want to make clear that, as far as the national monuments are concerned, my Republican colleagues have been in control here for the last 4 years, and they have been unable to fashion a compromise acceptable to the American public to go ahead and repeal this legislation. And we have been in fact left with, and I am pleased that we still have, an Antiquities Act that has been utilized by 14 Presidents over the course of the better part of this last century, since 1906, Republicans and Democrats alike. I think it would be a tragedy for this House to use this back-door attempt to try and take away a power to have disastrous consequences on lands that belong to the American public, and they want us to exercise this sort of stewardship. I would ask them to at least have the decency to bring forward legislation to repeal the Antiquities Act and do this in a straightforward fashion. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Utah. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and everybody on that side voted for two pieces of legislation to not repeal it but to take care of it. And what the gentleman has said and the other gentleman has said about law enforcement and other areas is just not true. What this does, if this gets through, all that ground will stay under the management plan it now has, which allows for law enforcement, which allows for cars. It does not make any changes whatsoever. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, that is simply not what the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service say. They say that once it is designated as a monument, this amendment applies. They cannot do law enforcement, they cannot do planning, they cannot take care of the visitor. They legally changed the designation and thus would be impacted. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would be happy if he would put in there to repeal that project. I would be very happy to have him do that. And when all else fails, read it and he will see he is wrong. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I am going to say this slowly to my friends on the other side just so we keep our eye on the ball here. This requires that the agencies of the Federal Government to deal in land management comply with the law. Talk about lawsuits. We are going to have big lawsuits if they do not comply with the law and adopt this amendment. That is what we are talking about here. The means to do justify the end. That is what this administration seems to want to do is just say, we do not care about the law, we just want to get this done. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Resources. Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, it has been an interesting conversation. I will stay away from the monuments, but we will talk about that later. We did vote on them on this floor. If the gentleman did not vote for it, he was not doing his duty. I am a little disappointed that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) opposes the Nethercutt amendment. The Nethercutt amendment does exactly what he says it does, it follows the law. I know the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) likes to follow the law. He goes to the State of Alaska and catches all my salmon. And the best thing I want to do is have the salmon reestablished on the Columbia River so he quits raiding my fish in Alaska. I mean, especially when he takes numerous amounts of those fish that I would like to take myself. I would like to suggest one thing. The Nethercutt amendment does exactly what is correct, following the laws that this Congress passed. But this administration has a great tendency to not to follow the law in any way, shape, or form. This is their habit. This is their MO. They care little about this Congress. We are going to do what we think is right and forget the people of America. Now, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) said it exactly right, the Columbia initiative was in fact a designation and a study on the Columbia River concerning mostly Oregon and Washington, Montana, Idaho, State River, Columbia River, etc.; and it is all being done by the agencies. And my colleagues want to have a decision that goes against the laws on the books today, a decision made by an administration that does not really follow the law? They want to include this Congress in that decision on how it will affect the local economy? They want to have a decision made now so we do not have further actions by the judicial branch? I am going to suggest, respectfully, if the Nethercutt amendment is not adopted it will end up in court and nothing will occur and no solution will be reached. So I am suggesting that the Nethercutt amendment is the right way to go. This is what should be done and will be done if we do what is right. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise in opposition to the Nethercutt amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is very poorly directed in a sense that if my colleagues are complaining about whether or not it is too expensive, I think this amendment only makes this process far more expensive. I think, also, the amendment is targeted at trying to declare the Basin Management Plan something that it is not, and that is that it is not a regulatory process, it is a management plan. All of us have gone through this. We have gone through this in the Sierra Mountains, where we have known that we cannot deal with this on an individualized little watershed bill; we have got to look at the entire ecosystem. In California we just completed with the governor and the Secretary of Interior the Cal Fed plan. Why? Because if we do not do that, it is very clear that all the pieces in and of themselves are deficient and they are deficient so we end up shutting down the water system in California, whether it is the irrigation system for our farmers, whether it is the drinking water for our cities, because the system cannot be operated in such a fashion. In order to stave that off, we engaged in comprehensive basin management just as we are talking about on the Columbia River. Because the gentleman from Washington is right, if we stop this process, if we kill this process, then we go back to the status quo. And [[Page H4504]] the status quo, it is a no-brainer for a court to put them right back into the situation that they are in on the other side of the mountains, on the western side, where they had chaos, where they had just chaos ruling in terms of whether people lost their jobs or communities did not do well or whether the forests were harvested or not harvested. This is a chance to get ahead of that curve. They spent $15 million trying to get ahead of that curve. They had endless meetings with local towns and communities and political subdivisions and all of that. And the question is, can they come up with a plan so they can continue to improve this, may continue the viability of the basin. This is no different than what we are confronting all over the West. And we are doing it so that we can escape the chaos of individualized slapping down of endangered species problems and all the rest of that. Because that is why this plan came into being, because we know what we can front down the road. So it is very easy that if they stop this, in fact, the evidence is so clear on its face that the judge simply decides that they cannot provide the level of management to provide the kinds of protections that are necessary to the habitat, to the watersheds, to the species; and, therefore, they are back into chaos. And it is difficult. We have been at this a number of years in California with the Cal Fed process. As difficult as it is, all parts of the puzzle recognize that, with a comprehensive management plan, they in fact are in a better place than what they would be. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with the fact about how complicated and difficult these are to work through. I think we would all agree on that. But what I keep hearing is how ICBEMP is going to resolve this issue just as the Northwest Forest Plan was resolved on the West side. Is the gentleman arguing that the Northwest Forest Plan is a success and has met its goals? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am arguing that what we have learned is that, absent comprehensive plans that address all facets of the various large basins, the large systems, whether it is the Sierra or the Columbia River or the California water system, absent that, what they get is they get back into chaos because the individual attempts are not sufficient to provide the level of protection. So they find themselves with the court running their systems as opposed to the political leadership and the local communities. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say this. We have been through this. On the West side, we were enjoined by the Federal judge, no timber harvesting. Zero. The new administration came in and held a summit in Portland, and nobody was entirely pleased with the outcome, but we got the injunctions lifted. We got some timber harvest restored. We got a $1.2 billion-a-year plan to help the communities deal with these problems. And we moved on. What we are talking about here with the Nethercutt amendment is going back to the way we used to do business, and that way is going to lead us to the Federal Court's injunction. And, again, he is going to hurt his own people. That is why I do not understand why he is doing this. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Because, as my colleague knows, the court is back saying the plan that has been put forward after that has been done on the Northwest Forest Plan is still not in compliance. Because the survey and manage requirements that were shoved in in the dark of night by this administration says the Forest Service has been unable and may indeed be incapable of meeting. We still are not achieving the goals of that plan. My point in this debate right here, right now, is that to use that as an example of success is not fair when it has been a failure. I agree we have got to have the science in place. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that is the case. Listen, they are going to continue to challenge us on Cal Fed from either side, from the agricultural side and from the environmental side. They will continue to challenge us on the Sierra plan. But the fact that they have a plan in place allows the judge to look at that in a much different fashion than if they have nothing in place so the judge can then tinker with the plan, but they are not back into wholesale injuctions on an eco-wide system. So that plan is serious, serious insulation from going back to where they were. I mean, maybe time has erased our memory what was going on in the Northwest. But take ourselves back to the late 1980s and 1990s, we had total chaos. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, so what he is arguing is that, if we are going to err at all, we need to err on the side of following the law. Right? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. No. The gentleman can say whatever he wants to say. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. But the General Accounting Office, in 1997, says that this does constitute a rule in their opinion and, therefore, this small business would follow. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, and obviously, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture seriously disagree with that. Let us not pretend that they do not. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just say to my friend from California, not from the Northwest, this is not killing the process at all. We are just requiring that the agencies of the Government comply with the law. The means do not justify the end. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules. {time} 1130 Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend from Eastern Washington for all the work that he has been doing on this issue. I do enjoy working with my friend from western Washington. We have worked on a lot of issues together that is obviously important to my district. I do appreciate that very much. But on this issue, obviously there is a basic difference as to how we should approach our economy and our resources in our given area. It is an honest difference of opinion, I think. What I find very interesting in the arguments that I have heard heretofore from my friend from western Washington and my friend from Oregon, they were saying that if we do not like this process by going through the appropriation process, we ought to use the authorizing process. I have always been a proponent of that, but I would make this point very clear. ICBEMP was never authorized. It was done at a time in 1993 when that side of the aisle controlled both houses of the Congress and for some reason they felt that they did not need to authorize this project. It was put in an appropriations bill and now we are living with the consequences of something that has grown from $5 million now to $56 million. It has kind of grown like Topsy and it has grown in scope, too. Let me make a couple of points that were made by those on the other side as far as their arguments. In his opening remarks, my friend from western Washington was saying that in the planning process, the ICBEMP provides more certainty and it does not take planning out of the local jurisdictions. I would just make this observation. This ICBEMP as it has been expanded in this time period covers some 105 counties in those seven States. Not one of those counties has passed a resolution in support of ICBEMP. In fact, to the contrary, 65 of those counties have passed resolutions in opposition to ICBEMP for the very reason opposite of what the gentleman said, they are concerned that this affects their planning process. [[Page H4505]] Again, this seems to be a pattern from this administration that we will have these meetings that has been mentioned a number of times, but at the end of the day we are not going to listen to the concerns of those at the local level. That seems to be a pattern over and over and over. What are the reasons why? I can state one of my large counties in my district, why they are concerned about the Federal Government doing this planning and governing in one area, in the northern part of my district in Okanogan County. They are concerned about how the Forest Service is addressing the issue of noxious weeds. They are not addressing the issue of noxious weeds in the forest land. That is going over into the private lands and it is putting a burden on the taxpayers in that area to fund the noxious weed board. That is just one example why they have a concern about the Federal Government taking over this planning. Finally, I would like to as far as the resource part of it make this observation, because the Endangered Species Act has been a threat, that if we do not do this, the Endangered Species Act is going to preempt everything, and we will end up in a bad situation. I would make this observation, that unless we listen to the local people that are affected, we are going to be in worse shape than we ever possibly think we could. Because it seems to me the implicit idea or thought process of this administration is to not trust those that are elected at the local level to make decisions. I find that, frankly, wrong. There is another example in my district where local people have worked together trying to comply with the Endangered Species Act as it is written right now through the HCP process. That was signed a couple of years ago by the Chelan and Douglas County PUDs. It still has not gone through the whole NEPA process yet, but they are very confident that if they go through that process, they can live to the letter of the law with the Endangered Species Act. I for one, by the way, think that the Endangered Species Act ought to be changed, but in the letter of the law they can. Why? Because this is local people working together to come to a solution. But ICBEMP, the way it is structured and what we have seen does not allow for that to happen. Finally, from the regulatory standpoint here with my friend from eastern Washington's amendment. This area that we are talking about is largely an agricultural area. There is no huge urban area like Portland, Oregon or like Tacoma or like the Bay Area in California. There is no large urban area like that. It is largely agriculture. If we do not know what the impact is going to be on the farm implement dealers or the farm chemical dealers or the food processors who are largely smaller businesses in that area, then we are not doing a service to those that are going to be affected. That is all that this amendment does, is to say, let us put everything into the mix and follow the law. After all, this is an unauthorized project. If the concern is that it goes for one more year, what is wrong with that, as long as we get it right? Because this will have a big impact on my constituents. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my friend from eastern Washington's amendment. I think it is the right thing to do in order to clarify where ICBEMP is going. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill). (Mr. HILL of Montana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HILL of Montana. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, my constituents are deeply concerned about this interior Columbia Basin management plan. They see this as kind of a classical bait and switch that occurred. Basically what happened is that the Clinton administration proposed this study as a scientific assessment so that we would have a regionwide science that could be applied to the individual forests for the development and the renewal of the individual forest management plans. In the process, the administration went to the local governments and solicited their input and their participation and invited them to participate in the process. As a consequence of that, there was pretty broad support for doing this scientific assessment, because, as the gentleman from California pointed out, it was necessary for us to be able to have local forest management plans, to have regionwide science in the development of those plans. But along the way, things changed. The administration decided that it was going to shift this from a scientific assessment to a decision- making document. What does that mean? It means that the standards and the rules and regulations that would be determined in interior Columbia Basin would be imposed on the local forests. The consequence of that is that now the individual forests cannot make individual forest management decisions. They have to comply with an increasing number of standards and rules and regulations that are on a regionwide basis. We have heard some talk out here about the success of this in a narrow regional area west of the Cascades. But, Mr. Chairman, the forests and the BLM lands that are being impacted by interior Columbia Basin are diverse. The species of trees is diverse. The elevations are diverse. The amount of rainfall that occurs is diverse. There is little similarity in these forests except that they are all part of the Columbia River drainage. In any event, the administration then determined that it was going to basically override the intent of Congress. Congress has said it wants forest management, land management decisions made locally by making an overriding regional decision document. The problem today is that this Interior-Columbia Basin issue and the Reg Flex issue is kind of caught up in a bigger set of issues. Because right now we have the designation of national monuments going on, the roadless forest initiative going on, mineral and oil and gas withdrawals of the Clinton administration, proposals to breach the dams on the Snake River and ICBEMP all occurring at one time. It is no wonder that the people in this region feel like there is a war being declared on them with all these things happening. What the gentleman from Washington's amendment is trying to do is deal with just one narrow area. That says that if ICBEMP is going to go through and it is going to be a decision-making document, then let us make sure that it complies with all the laws. If the goal of this device is to eliminate injunctions in court overriding local decisions, then it has to comply with all the law. That is what this amendment intends to do. I urge the support of the amendment. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) who is a valued member of the subcommittee. Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, one of the more unfortunate aspects of the present majority's rule of this House over the last several years has been this propensity to attach antienvironmental riders to appropriations bills. Essentially that is what we have here today in this particular context. Seven years ago, the administration embarked upon a plan to improve environmental management in the Columbia River Basin. All of the land affected by this plan, by the way, and very importantly, is public land. It is not private land. It is public land. It is land owned by all of the people of the country. So my constituents in New York as well as every constituent of every Member of this House has a stake in the development of this plan to manage important public resources in the Columbia River basin. That project has gone forward. It has gone forward very carefully, very intelligently, and in a very open way. An environmental impact statement has been produced. A supplemental environmental impact statement has been produced. All of the activities here have been based on good, sound, responsible science. The intention is to improve habitat in the Columbia River, to improve habitat for bull trout, for salmon, to improve recreational resources, to improve timber resources, and to have a comprehensive plan which will stand and which will allow people all across the spectrum, from recreational uses all across the spectrum to extracted uses to be able to use this public land in the most effective and efficient way. Now we have this amendment to the Dicks amendment which would block [[Page H4506]] implementation of this Pacific Northwest plan for forest watersheds and endangered species. It would do so by attempting to superimpose an aspect of the small business law onto the environmental law, to take one piece of a law and inappropriately attach it to a situation where it does not belong, has no standing, has no meaning and makes no sense. Therefore alone, for that reason alone, just on the structural basis of it, the technical aspects of it, this amendment ought to be rejected. But it ought to be rejected on much more solid ground and much more important ground, and that is this, we are here discussing the future of a very important part of America. Again, I emphasize, a part owned by all of the citizens of this country, held in trust by the Federal Government, administered by the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies within the Department of the Interior. Now, everybody has a responsibility to make sure that this works and this antienvironmental rider inappropriately attached to this bill ought to be very soundly and solidly rejected. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that just because someone says that it is an antienvironmental rider does not mean that it is. This is complying with the law. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) who is from the region that is affected by this study, not from outside our region. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to follow somebody from New York who has a district along the river much like the Columbia River, the Hudson River. There is a lot of similarity there. The difference is they do not have this kind of a planning process in place by the Federal Government, ICBEMP. I want to talk for a moment, Mr. Chairman, about the relationship of this requirement for this rule. The GAO, the General Accounting Office general counsel wrote in July of 1997 a letter to Congress that a national forest land and resource management plan generally was considered a rule for the purposes of this Small Business Regulatory Act. Failure to comply with this act is judicially reviewable and courts have invalidated agency rules on this basis. All we are asking here is for this administration to follow the law. And if there is a question about whether this is legal or not, would it not be time for this administration to err on the side of following the law if there is a question? Would that not be refreshing? Mr. Chairman, let me talk for a moment about the monument issue, because we have heard a lot about the Antiquities Act. I have a copy of the relevant statute here. Let me read from it, that ``any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument or any object of an antiquity situated on the lands owned or controlled by the government of the United States.'' {time} 1145 That is what we are talking about, these objects, these archeological fines. It goes on to say, that the Government may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. And then it goes on to talking about archeological sites, small little objects, and we are going to protect the land around

Amendments:

Cosponsors:


bill

Search Bills

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001


Sponsor:

Summary:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 15, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4498-H4567] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Pursuant to House Resolution 524 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4578. {time} 1039 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4578) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday June 14, 2000, the amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) had been disposed of and the bill [[Page H4499]] was open for amendment from page 53 line 10 through page 53 line 22. Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, the amendment by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), adding a new section at the end of title I, if offered, shall begin with his initial 5-minute speech in support of the amendment. No further debate on that amendment shall be in order. Amendments to that amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) or the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), each shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence of both the chairman and the ranking member to allow me to speak out of turn. The reason I would like to address the House this morning is with respect to the roadless forest initiative. My colleague and friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), had originally looked at introducing some limitation amendments on the roadless forest initiative and as he will say shortly has decided not to introduce them. In some ways I regret that but I certainly respect his decision. I rise in opposition to the roadless forest initiative. I represent a national forest that was once the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forest. Like so many others, I have a concern over the effect of the roadless forest initiative on the economy of my district and the health and safety of our national forests. I would like to make three brief quick points this morning to show the breadth of opposition in my home area to this roadless forest initiative. First, local units of government in the State of Wisconsin in general, and in the Eighth Congressional District, oppose the roadless forest initiative. The Wisconsin Counties Association opposes it. The Counties of Vilas and Oneida and Oconto and others oppose it. They oppose it because they understand how dependent our communities and our economy is upon the national forest, recreation, and timber harvesting. They also oppose it because they recognize that cutting off these forests to human access poses substantial fire and safety risks. Point number two, the roadless forest initiative violates a historic compact between local units of government and the Federal Government. This national forest in northern Wisconsin was created in the 1920s. There were a series of transactions between local units of government, county forests, the private sector and the Federal Government. On record, on the public record and in public documents, specifically these transactions were made with an understanding that access to the national forests would be maintained, in fact, explicitly that commercial access to the forests would be maintained. Yet, the roadless forest initiative, if it is implemented, would break that understanding, would break that agreement. Very clearly, the Federal Government is on the verge of breaking its word with the people of northeastern Wisconsin and very clearly these local leaders would never, would never, have transferred county forest to the national forest if they knew that years down the line we would go back on our word. Finally and most damning, the Forest Service employees of northern Wisconsin themselves oppose the roadless forest initiative. The very people being called upon to implement the roadless forest initiative oppose it. They have taken a formal position through Local 2165 of the National Federation of Federal Employees, they have taken a formal position against the roadless forest initiative. They understand the difficulties of enforcing it. They understand how it will do tremendous damage to our way of life and they understand how the roadless forest initiative has failed to take into account the local concerns in northern Wisconsin. I will later place in the Record these resolutions demonstrating the clear opposition in northern Wisconsin to this initiative. Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) indicated, we were prepared to offer up to several amendments to block the roadless initiative and the road management rule. Instead, through conversations with the Chair and the ranking member, we have decided not to. These policies and rules that are currently pending before the National Forest Service are still pending. We will have time in the months ahead to help fashion and mold hopefully something we can all live with. Let me just take a few minutes here and explain what is going on with the roadless initiative and the road management policy. {time} 1045 These are new Forest Service policies. They are decisions affecting the national forests throughout the country. They are not found in any of the local-national forest management plans, and they are developed without a local input and without local forest officials' input. Now, the roadless initiative on the face of it does not sound too bad, because it includes defined roadless areas. In my two national forests in Ottawa, that is 4,600 acres and in the Hiawatha National Forest, that is 7,600 acres. We could probably agree that, in those areas that are identified, it makes some sense not to put roads; and we agree that could make some sense. But then it calls for other unroaded areas, other unroaded areas. We do not know the size of those areas. We do not know where they are located. It cannot be simply identified. So if we cannot identify the other unroaded areas, why would we let a policy go through and we as Members of this Congress allow a policy to go through that we have no clue, no clue where these other areas are. Talk to Washington officials, they say one's local officials know. Talk to our local forest officials, and we have had hearings on this part, and they said we do not know because we do not have the guidelines. So they would let a policy go through. Look, the proper role on roadless initiative, identify the areas; and if one wants it to be a wilderness area, that is a proper role of Congress. We should do it. Proposals undetermine other roaded areas. It limits one's access. It limits one's use. It limits one's enjoyment of the forest. If it was the roadless initiative, we could probably live with that, but look at what else is going on at the same time. At the exact time is this thing called road management rule. The only way one can build a road in the national forest if this road management rule goes through is if there is a compelling reason for a road. Temporary roads that we use and rely on for fire fighting, for insect control, for harvesting timber are not recognized. No more temporary roads, none whatsoever. Who has to agree to it? Not the local foresters, but the regional forester. In Milwaukee, they are going to decide for Michigan and Wisconsin whether or not there is going to be a road in northern Michigan regardless of what the local forestry officials say. So it virtually bans road construction and reconstruction. So in other words, one cannot even fix up a forest road if this policy goes through, only essential classified roads, no feeder roads, no feeder roads. It does not recognize temporary roads for forest timbers. So put the roadless initiative with this road management rule that no one knows anything about, put it together, and one has new policies, new rules that will supersede existing locally developed forest management plans in our national forest. The results are one is going to have a national policy that says one size fits all. We lose our local control. There is no control input. Economic impact is not even recognized. For northern Wisconsin and northern Michigan and Minnesota, we rely upon our national forests, not just for timber sales, for recreation, no personal enjoyment, for hunting; but one has no input. Those economies are not even recognized as we develop these policies. Last but not least, the new policies and rules change the established use of the forest, the access to the forest, and the activities that can be performed within the forest. [[Page H4500]] What we have here, as we have debated this bill many times in the past, legislative attempts to limit road building, to limit reconstruction of roads in our national forests. They cannot pass that. They cannot come before Congress and legislatively pass it. So they are doing this back-door approach through a rulemaking process on road management that there is no input. One can write one's comments, but there is not a meeting anywhere in the United States where people from the local national forest did come and confront the local forest people and say here is what we need roads for. Why cannot one reconstruct this one road that goes to our lake? Because they are going to put through an administrative rule underneath the Administrative Procedures Act. So I urge all Members to look at the roadless initiative. When one applies the road management on top of that roadless initiative, we have serious problems with what is going on in our national forests. I ask them to be vigilant and fight these policies by the National Forest Service. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), ranking member, for allowing the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and I to proceed outside of order. New Forest Service Policies/Rules (Decisions affecting National Forests; not found in Forest Management Plans; developed without local community & local forest officials input) roadless initiative (Includes defined Roadless Areas and undefined ``other unroaded'' areas) Wilderness Designation is proper role of Congress. Proposes undetermined ``other unroaded areas''. Limits access, use & enjoyment of forest. road management rule (Only if compelling reason for a road; no ``temp'' roads; EIS signed by Regional Forester) Virtually bans forest road construction & reconstruction. Only essential classified roads (no feeder roads). Does not recognize temporary roads for timber harvest. new policies/rules that supersede existing locally developed Forest Plans--Results National Policy--``one size-fits-all'' mentality, loss of local control. Economic Impact--not recognized, local economies depend on National Forests. New Policies/Rules--change established uses, access & activities. Amendment Offered By Mr. Dicks The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report copy B of the Dicks amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks: On page 52, after line 15, add the following new section: Sec. . Any limitation imposed under this Act on funds made available by this Act related to planning and management of national monuments, or activities related to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan shall not apply to any activity which is otherwise authorized by law. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House yesterday, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which would overcome section 334 and 335 of the Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. My amendment seeks to overcome the funding limitation imposed in the bill under section 334 and 335 relating to the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan, known as ICBEMP, and the design, planning, and management of national monuments. Both of these provisions are objectionable to the Clinton administration, and the committee has received a letter from the Office of Management and Budget director Jack Lew stating that the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto unless these riders are removed. Section 334 of the bill would stop the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, ICBEMP, from going forward. The author of the provision included report language to the bill language stating concern that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are not in compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Flexibility Act by completing a regulatory flexibility analysis. The administration, on the other hand, believes that such an analysis is not required. This is a major issue in this debate. Now, I understand that the author of the amendment may have concerns about the agencies complying with all laws, but I have been assured by the administration that they are, in fact, in compliance with all existing Federal laws and, therefore, object to the inclusion of this provision which would basically stop their work on this particular project. Further, I do not know whether the author of the amendment does or does not support the Columbia Basin Project's goals, but I think it is vitally important to articulate why it should go forward and not be stopped with a rider in this Interior appropriations bill. The Columbia Basin Project was initiated by President Clinton in 1993 to respond to landscape-scale issues, including forest and rangeland health, the listing of Snake River salmon, bull trout protection, and treaty and trust responsibilities to the Tribes in the area. It also sought to bring more certainty and stability to the communities located in the Columbia River Basin, which were impacted by these events. What we had before were literally dozens of smaller management plans that only addressed specific areas within the basin. The goal of ICBEMP was to better assemble each individual plan into a more coordinated watershed-based program. ICBEMP has several goals. Among them is to better protect the habitat important to threatened and endangered species and also to provide a long-term plan for mining, grazing, and timber harvest, all of which are still allowed under the project. It is not a land grab, nor does it take decisions out of the hands of local communities and local management offices. It is an important step to better manage these critical lands, and it has had several years in development and has received extensive public comments and participation. Section 335 prevents the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture from using any funds for the purpose of designing, planning, or management of Federal lands as national monuments which were designated since 1999. This provision attempts to restrict the designation of monuments by the President under the authority of the 1906 Antiquities Act by using a back-door method: funding limitation. A prohibition on spending funds for these monuments would not change their legal status, but it would prevent any ongoing spending within the monument areas as defined by law. I would say to all of my colleagues who had monuments declared, that the author of the amendment chose not to cover his monument, but he is covering our colleagues' monuments. The author of the amendment included language in the Interior Appropriations report to accompany the bill which states: ``Nothing in this language prevents either Secretary from managing these Federal lands under their previous management plans.'' But the bill language clearly states that no money shall be expended for the purpose of design, planning, or management of Federal lands as national monuments. Once the President has acted to designate these lands, they are legally designated and would thus be subject to the spending limitation. All this provision would do is ensure that no Federal dollars by our land and resource management agencies could be spent in these areas. A monument designation does not lock up these lands. Quite the contrary, monument status does not preclude such activities as grazing or mining. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.) Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, monument status also involves an extensive community involvement process so that programs can be established for all public uses. Hunting, fishing, hiking, canoeing are all allowed in these areas. But they would all be stopped if we could not do necessary wildlife surveys and environmental programs. This provision would not allow any funds to be spent for law enforcement [[Page H4501]] and staffing in the monument. In the areas where there are visitors' centers, they would be closed because the provision would preclude any funds from being spent to operate, maintain, or staff them. I understand that some of the President's recent designations have been controversial. But he has had, in each instance, the complete authority to act under the jurisdiction of the 1906 Antiquities Act. If the authorizing committees, and I note the presence of the chairman of the authorizing committee, if the authorizing committee of jurisdiction wishes to reexamine the Antiquities Act or wishes to pass legislation to cancel any specific monument designation, then they should do so. But the inclusion of this provision and the other provisions are ill- advised and ensure a veto by the President. I urge support of my amendment and hope the House agrees that these provisions should not be included in this bill. Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Nethercutt to the Amendment Offered By Mr. Dicks Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment to the amendment. The text of the amendment to the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 46 offered by Mr. Nethercutt to the amendment offered by Mr. Dicks: Strike ``monuments,'' and insert ``monuments or''. Strike ``, or activities related to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan''. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 14, 2000, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt). Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the Dicks amendment would strike the provision in the Dicks amendment concerning the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, called ICBEMP. First and foremost, the linkage of the national monuments portion of the Dicks amendment with the Interior-Columbia Basin Management Project language in his amendment requires that they be separated. They are not the same. They are completely different. They have no relevance to each other. They have no relationship to each other. Therefore, on that point alone, my amendment should be adopted. My amendment seeks to strip the ICBEMP language from the Dicks amendments. So that is point number one, and that is the simplest way to look at this whole issue. The second issue and the reason for removing it from the Dicks amendment is that this ICBEMP project was begun in 1993 as a scientific assessment of eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. Now, I want my colleagues and the chairman to keep this in mind, it started as a scientific assessment. We were going to take a look at the ecosystem condition of eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. The scientific findings were to be used as forest and Bureau of Land Management districts updated their land management plans. Since 1993, this administration has grown this project to a size that encompasses Idaho, western Montana, parts of Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. {time} 1100 Seven States, 144 million acres, are affected by what started out as an assessment informally. Even more troubling is that it has grown to a scope that it has now become a decision-making document with standards, meaning that the recommendations of the project managers will automatically amend the land use plans in the region. The seven-State region; 144 million acres. In 1998, the House had this issue before it. It voted to keep the Columbia Basin project advisory in nature. Not a rulemaking, not a decision-making document, but advisory. That language, which I sponsored and which was adopted by the House, rejected the idea that it should be more than advisory in nature. Unfortunately, in the negotiations on this whole issue at the last minute with respect to the omnibus appropriations, that language was sacrificed by the leadership and on the insistence of the President. Section 334 of the bill, language which I put in, requires the Forest Service and the BLM to comply with existing law. That is the second broad but important point in this whole debate. It requires this administration to follow existing law, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, prior to finalizing any interior Columbia Basin ecosystem management project record of decision. What is happening here, and those of us in the West understand this, is that this administration has time and time again tried to rush to judgment, to have a record of decision that will have the effect of law and that will affect dramatically the land use ability and land use of the western States, the seven western States which are part of this so- called study. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act passed overwhelmingly in this House, signed into law in 1996, requires agencies to do this simple task: Examine and mitigate for the impact that a proposed rule will have on small entities. This administration knows that the small entities, the small rural communities of eastern Washington and the seven western States that I mentioned, are impacted by this outside of the power that they have to stop it. So the only resource we have is to make sure that this administration complies with the law, and that is what this amendment does. It says before a record of decision is issued, Federal agencies must comply with the law that exists, that was signed into law by this President. I heard my friend from Washington say that he has an assurance from the administration that they do not have to comply with the law in this case; that this act does not apply to them. Only this administration would urge that the Congress ignore the obligation that this administration has to comply with the law. Only this administration would do that. So I am not persuaded by the assurance that we have been given that this law, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act does not apply. It applies, and there are court decisions that confirm that it applies. The General Accounting Office has issued a report confirming that it applies. This plan, the ICBEMP plan, is going to amend 62 individual land use plans in the West. It is going to amend land use plans on 32 national Forest Service and BLM administrative units in this project area. It will replace three interim strategies. The project is clearly a rule, and there are court decisions that say so. Failure to comply with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act is judicially reviewable by courts, and courts have invalidated agency rules on this basis, against Mr. Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, in 1998. Evidence is that the agencies have been wrong about this before. Over $56 million have been spent on this project. It is not authorized. This Congress has not authorized this project. The northwest industries have indicated to me that if a regulatory flexibility analysis is not completed, as required by law, and again that is all we are trying to do is have this administration comply with the law, they will pursue litigation which will throw this whole study into turmoil. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that the project does not leave itself open to litigation, if a record of decision is issued without having completed a regulatory flexibility analysis. This is overreaching by the administrative agencies of this government, by this administration, by the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the BLM. They are trying to go around the law, and that is wrong. That is wrong for rural America, it is wrong for the States that are represented in the West, and we should not let it happen. So this should be separated out from this amendment because it does not apply to the national monuments issue. It applies to the fairness and the obligation to small businesses to be [[Page H4502]] true to the law, and this administration is lacking in that regard if it tries to go forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my good friend and colleague that 7 years is hardly a rush to judgment. I want my colleagues to hear the language of this limitation in this appropriation bill. It says right here, ``None of the funds made available under this act may be used to issue a record of decision or any policy implementing the interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project not prepared pursuant to law, as set forth in chapter 6 of Title V of the United States Code.'' In all my years of being on the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, the relevance of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act has been somewhat questionable. But let us talk about the analysis that is done in an Environmental Impact Statement. It looks at the socioeconomic impact of the EIS. Now, either we can get serious and decide we want to really pass legislation, and this bill. Frankly, it is fatally flawed, but these limitations are objectionable to the administration every single year because they offend the process. We do not have hearings, we do not get into great detail on these things and, frankly, and the gentleman, of course, has been here for a number of years, but that is why we have authorizing committees and that is why in most instances we should let the authorizing committees deal with these substantive issues and not deal with them in the appropriations process. I think on both sides of the aisle there has been a consensus that we should not do these limitations unless there is just absolutely no other way to deal with the problem. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) in opposition to the Nethercutt amendment. Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time to speak against the Nethercutt amendment and in favor of the Dicks amendment. First, as it relates to what my friend from Spokane has advanced, I think it is important to allow the Columbia Basin Ecosystem plan to proceed. If adopted by this chamber, the Nethercutt amendment would retain the anti-environmental rider, which would block the implementation of this Pacific Northwest plan for forests, watersheds and endangered species. It is true that it has grown somewhat in terms of scope and dimension. It has done so because that is what has been dictated as in the best interests of the region that we all care about and in terms of what will make the most difference. Careful long-term planning is a help, not an impediment, to the various challenges that we face in the Pacific Northwest. I have heard my colleague more than once on this floor talk about the problems how this has stretched out over 7 years at a cost of $45 million. Well, adoption of this amendment, and subjecting yet another requirement to this plan, is only going to make the process more expensive and more time consuming. And, indeed, Congress itself is in no small measure a culprit. Every year that I have been here, since 1996, the Committee on Appropriations has been interfering with the orderly implementation of this review. Now, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) pointed out, the extension of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act to this study is something that has never before been required. It is vigorously disputed as to its applicability. But most important it opens up a very real possibility that we are going to block the potential Federal Government activity to improve the environmental and management activities in the Columbia River basin. It is going to make it more likely, not less likely, that a court is going to intervene, possibly issuing a decree that could mandate management plan changes and entirely halting the production of goods and services on Federal lands in project areas throughout its deliberations, and the variety of little pieces that are involved there. It is wrong. We ought to get on with this business. It has the greatest potential of solving some very real problems that we in the Pacific Northwest face. I would like to speak, if I could for a moment, to something that I consider even more insidious, and that is the underlying amendment that would include restrictions on the ability to have funding to implement the National Monuments Act. This is a major policy adjustment, as has been suggested by my colleague from Washington, and it would have severe, I hope unintended, consequences. Some may applaud at the prospect of not having law enforcement on our public lands, but that is an extreme position that would not be approved by my constituents, nor I think by the constituents of at least most of us in this Chamber. It is not going to do us any good to not be able to regulate off-road vehicles, law enforcement, mining, the grazing activities. This is categorically wrongheaded, and it is, in and of itself, why the administration will veto the bill. They would have no choice. But it is an example of the environmental extremism that we hear so often about on the other side of the aisle. If my colleagues do not like the Antiquities Act, they should go ahead and repeal it. If they do not like what the President has done in any specific designation, they should have the courage to bring a specific bill to Congress and undo it. They do not because these are popular actions, they are things that would be supported by this Chamber, and the environmental extremists on the other side of the aisle would rather play havoc with our ability to manage public land in an orderly fashion. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's point is right on target, as far as I am concerned. The gentleman mentioned this Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. According to the Department of the Interior, the House requires, under this amendment, the Federal Government to prepare analysis, to their knowledge, that has never been prepared for any land use planned effort, no matter its scope. As a result, the House action will unreasonably extend the duration of planning for this project, which, in part, due to requirements placed on the Federal Government by riders to every full year appropriation for Interior since 1996, has already taken 7 years to complete at considerable cost to the American taxpayer. The thing that I worry about is that we are going to get ourselves into the same mess we did before the forest plan was put into place, and that is that a Federal judge is going to say that we have not done the right things in terms of watershed protection, that we are not protecting these fish under the Endangered Species Act. He will stop all the logging, all the mining, all the grazing, and an injunction issue. And that is the worst possible outcome. So I am saying to the gentleman from Washington, who I do consider to be a friend and a thoughtful person, that it is time now to let this process go forward and finish this EIS and make the changes that are necessary to protect the bull trout, to protect the salmon runs on the Snake River, to make sure that we are doing the watershed protection so that we do not get the Endangered Species Act implemented in an adverse way in the gentleman's area. But we cannot simply do nothing. We cannot just say we have no plan, no strategy. I have supported both gentlemen from Washington on the issue of the Snake River dams. But if we are not going to take out the Snake River dams, then we have to do other things to protect the habitat, to deal with hatchery problems, to deal with harvest. And protecting the habitat is a major part of this requirement in order to protect these fish. I am going to let the gentlemen on the other side here have a chance, because I know the gentleman from Alabama is ready to go, but this amendment is offered in good constructive spirit. I think the strategy of trying to stop any change here is simply not going to work. It is going to wind up with the Endangered Species Act being applied by the Federal judges in a way none of us want, and so we have to make some hard decisions. [[Page H4503]] {time} 1115 We cannot say no to everything. That is why I supported the protection of the Hanford Reach. Because if we are not going to take out the dams, at least we will protect these salmon in the Hanford Reach. So I appreciate my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) yielding to me on this. This is something I feel very strongly about. I think the strategy here of continuing to delay this is a mistaken strategy, and that is why I offered this amendment. And I appreciate speaking on it. Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just conclude by expressing three things. First, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) in attempting to balance a very complex set of issues that we deal with in the Pacific Northwest. And oftentimes I know he must feel like he is the man in the middle. But I think he has addressed this in a direct and forthright manner. I do not think there is anybody in the Pacific Northwest who has worked harder to reach out to try to find middle ground and to avoid the catastrophe, I think, on all sides of these controversies. If we are going to cede our ability to plan in a thoughtful and manageable fashion and have it done on a piecemeal basis via the courts, I think we ought to move forward in terms of supporting what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has proposed. I want to make clear that, as far as the national monuments are concerned, my Republican colleagues have been in control here for the last 4 years, and they have been unable to fashion a compromise acceptable to the American public to go ahead and repeal this legislation. And we have been in fact left with, and I am pleased that we still have, an Antiquities Act that has been utilized by 14 Presidents over the course of the better part of this last century, since 1906, Republicans and Democrats alike. I think it would be a tragedy for this House to use this back-door attempt to try and take away a power to have disastrous consequences on lands that belong to the American public, and they want us to exercise this sort of stewardship. I would ask them to at least have the decency to bring forward legislation to repeal the Antiquities Act and do this in a straightforward fashion. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Utah. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and everybody on that side voted for two pieces of legislation to not repeal it but to take care of it. And what the gentleman has said and the other gentleman has said about law enforcement and other areas is just not true. What this does, if this gets through, all that ground will stay under the management plan it now has, which allows for law enforcement, which allows for cars. It does not make any changes whatsoever. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, that is simply not what the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service say. They say that once it is designated as a monument, this amendment applies. They cannot do law enforcement, they cannot do planning, they cannot take care of the visitor. They legally changed the designation and thus would be impacted. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would be happy if he would put in there to repeal that project. I would be very happy to have him do that. And when all else fails, read it and he will see he is wrong. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I am going to say this slowly to my friends on the other side just so we keep our eye on the ball here. This requires that the agencies of the Federal Government to deal in land management comply with the law. Talk about lawsuits. We are going to have big lawsuits if they do not comply with the law and adopt this amendment. That is what we are talking about here. The means to do justify the end. That is what this administration seems to want to do is just say, we do not care about the law, we just want to get this done. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Resources. Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, it has been an interesting conversation. I will stay away from the monuments, but we will talk about that later. We did vote on them on this floor. If the gentleman did not vote for it, he was not doing his duty. I am a little disappointed that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) opposes the Nethercutt amendment. The Nethercutt amendment does exactly what he says it does, it follows the law. I know the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) likes to follow the law. He goes to the State of Alaska and catches all my salmon. And the best thing I want to do is have the salmon reestablished on the Columbia River so he quits raiding my fish in Alaska. I mean, especially when he takes numerous amounts of those fish that I would like to take myself. I would like to suggest one thing. The Nethercutt amendment does exactly what is correct, following the laws that this Congress passed. But this administration has a great tendency to not to follow the law in any way, shape, or form. This is their habit. This is their MO. They care little about this Congress. We are going to do what we think is right and forget the people of America. Now, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) said it exactly right, the Columbia initiative was in fact a designation and a study on the Columbia River concerning mostly Oregon and Washington, Montana, Idaho, State River, Columbia River, etc.; and it is all being done by the agencies. And my colleagues want to have a decision that goes against the laws on the books today, a decision made by an administration that does not really follow the law? They want to include this Congress in that decision on how it will affect the local economy? They want to have a decision made now so we do not have further actions by the judicial branch? I am going to suggest, respectfully, if the Nethercutt amendment is not adopted it will end up in court and nothing will occur and no solution will be reached. So I am suggesting that the Nethercutt amendment is the right way to go. This is what should be done and will be done if we do what is right. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise in opposition to the Nethercutt amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is very poorly directed in a sense that if my colleagues are complaining about whether or not it is too expensive, I think this amendment only makes this process far more expensive. I think, also, the amendment is targeted at trying to declare the Basin Management Plan something that it is not, and that is that it is not a regulatory process, it is a management plan. All of us have gone through this. We have gone through this in the Sierra Mountains, where we have known that we cannot deal with this on an individualized little watershed bill; we have got to look at the entire ecosystem. In California we just completed with the governor and the Secretary of Interior the Cal Fed plan. Why? Because if we do not do that, it is very clear that all the pieces in and of themselves are deficient and they are deficient so we end up shutting down the water system in California, whether it is the irrigation system for our farmers, whether it is the drinking water for our cities, because the system cannot be operated in such a fashion. In order to stave that off, we engaged in comprehensive basin management just as we are talking about on the Columbia River. Because the gentleman from Washington is right, if we stop this process, if we kill this process, then we go back to the status quo. And [[Page H4504]] the status quo, it is a no-brainer for a court to put them right back into the situation that they are in on the other side of the mountains, on the western side, where they had chaos, where they had just chaos ruling in terms of whether people lost their jobs or communities did not do well or whether the forests were harvested or not harvested. This is a chance to get ahead of that curve. They spent $15 million trying to get ahead of that curve. They had endless meetings with local towns and communities and political subdivisions and all of that. And the question is, can they come up with a plan so they can continue to improve this, may continue the viability of the basin. This is no different than what we are confronting all over the West. And we are doing it so that we can escape the chaos of individualized slapping down of endangered species problems and all the rest of that. Because that is why this plan came into being, because we know what we can front down the road. So it is very easy that if they stop this, in fact, the evidence is so clear on its face that the judge simply decides that they cannot provide the level of management to provide the kinds of protections that are necessary to the habitat, to the watersheds, to the species; and, therefore, they are back into chaos. And it is difficult. We have been at this a number of years in California with the Cal Fed process. As difficult as it is, all parts of the puzzle recognize that, with a comprehensive management plan, they in fact are in a better place than what they would be. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with the fact about how complicated and difficult these are to work through. I think we would all agree on that. But what I keep hearing is how ICBEMP is going to resolve this issue just as the Northwest Forest Plan was resolved on the West side. Is the gentleman arguing that the Northwest Forest Plan is a success and has met its goals? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am arguing that what we have learned is that, absent comprehensive plans that address all facets of the various large basins, the large systems, whether it is the Sierra or the Columbia River or the California water system, absent that, what they get is they get back into chaos because the individual attempts are not sufficient to provide the level of protection. So they find themselves with the court running their systems as opposed to the political leadership and the local communities. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say this. We have been through this. On the West side, we were enjoined by the Federal judge, no timber harvesting. Zero. The new administration came in and held a summit in Portland, and nobody was entirely pleased with the outcome, but we got the injunctions lifted. We got some timber harvest restored. We got a $1.2 billion-a-year plan to help the communities deal with these problems. And we moved on. What we are talking about here with the Nethercutt amendment is going back to the way we used to do business, and that way is going to lead us to the Federal Court's injunction. And, again, he is going to hurt his own people. That is why I do not understand why he is doing this. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Because, as my colleague knows, the court is back saying the plan that has been put forward after that has been done on the Northwest Forest Plan is still not in compliance. Because the survey and manage requirements that were shoved in in the dark of night by this administration says the Forest Service has been unable and may indeed be incapable of meeting. We still are not achieving the goals of that plan. My point in this debate right here, right now, is that to use that as an example of success is not fair when it has been a failure. I agree we have got to have the science in place. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that is the case. Listen, they are going to continue to challenge us on Cal Fed from either side, from the agricultural side and from the environmental side. They will continue to challenge us on the Sierra plan. But the fact that they have a plan in place allows the judge to look at that in a much different fashion than if they have nothing in place so the judge can then tinker with the plan, but they are not back into wholesale injuctions on an eco-wide system. So that plan is serious, serious insulation from going back to where they were. I mean, maybe time has erased our memory what was going on in the Northwest. But take ourselves back to the late 1980s and 1990s, we had total chaos. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, so what he is arguing is that, if we are going to err at all, we need to err on the side of following the law. Right? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. No. The gentleman can say whatever he wants to say. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. But the General Accounting Office, in 1997, says that this does constitute a rule in their opinion and, therefore, this small business would follow. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, and obviously, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture seriously disagree with that. Let us not pretend that they do not. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just say to my friend from California, not from the Northwest, this is not killing the process at all. We are just requiring that the agencies of the Government comply with the law. The means do not justify the end. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules. {time} 1130 Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend from Eastern Washington for all the work that he has been doing on this issue. I do enjoy working with my friend from western Washington. We have worked on a lot of issues together that is obviously important to my district. I do appreciate that very much. But on this issue, obviously there is a basic difference as to how we should approach our economy and our resources in our given area. It is an honest difference of opinion, I think. What I find very interesting in the arguments that I have heard heretofore from my friend from western Washington and my friend from Oregon, they were saying that if we do not like this process by going through the appropriation process, we ought to use the authorizing process. I have always been a proponent of that, but I would make this point very clear. ICBEMP was never authorized. It was done at a time in 1993 when that side of the aisle controlled both houses of the Congress and for some reason they felt that they did not need to authorize this project. It was put in an appropriations bill and now we are living with the consequences of something that has grown from $5 million now to $56 million. It has kind of grown like Topsy and it has grown in scope, too. Let me make a couple of points that were made by those on the other side as far as their arguments. In his opening remarks, my friend from western Washington was saying that in the planning process, the ICBEMP provides more certainty and it does not take planning out of the local jurisdictions. I would just make this observation. This ICBEMP as it has been expanded in this time period covers some 105 counties in those seven States. Not one of those counties has passed a resolution in support of ICBEMP. In fact, to the contrary, 65 of those counties have passed resolutions in opposition to ICBEMP for the very reason opposite of what the gentleman said, they are concerned that this affects their planning process. [[Page H4505]] Again, this seems to be a pattern from this administration that we will have these meetings that has been mentioned a number of times, but at the end of the day we are not going to listen to the concerns of those at the local level. That seems to be a pattern over and over and over. What are the reasons why? I can state one of my large counties in my district, why they are concerned about the Federal Government doing this planning and governing in one area, in the northern part of my district in Okanogan County. They are concerned about how the Forest Service is addressing the issue of noxious weeds. They are not addressing the issue of noxious weeds in the forest land. That is going over into the private lands and it is putting a burden on the taxpayers in that area to fund the noxious weed board. That is just one example why they have a concern about the Federal Government taking over this planning. Finally, I would like to as far as the resource part of it make this observation, because the Endangered Species Act has been a threat, that if we do not do this, the Endangered Species Act is going to preempt everything, and we will end up in a bad situation. I would make this observation, that unless we listen to the local people that are affected, we are going to be in worse shape than we ever possibly think we could. Because it seems to me the implicit idea or thought process of this administration is to not trust those that are elected at the local level to make decisions. I find that, frankly, wrong. There is another example in my district where local people have worked together trying to comply with the Endangered Species Act as it is written right now through the HCP process. That was signed a couple of years ago by the Chelan and Douglas County PUDs. It still has not gone through the whole NEPA process yet, but they are very confident that if they go through that process, they can live to the letter of the law with the Endangered Species Act. I for one, by the way, think that the Endangered Species Act ought to be changed, but in the letter of the law they can. Why? Because this is local people working together to come to a solution. But ICBEMP, the way it is structured and what we have seen does not allow for that to happen. Finally, from the regulatory standpoint here with my friend from eastern Washington's amendment. This area that we are talking about is largely an agricultural area. There is no huge urban area like Portland, Oregon or like Tacoma or like the Bay Area in California. There is no large urban area like that. It is largely agriculture. If we do not know what the impact is going to be on the farm implement dealers or the farm chemical dealers or the food processors who are largely smaller businesses in that area, then we are not doing a service to those that are going to be affected. That is all that this amendment does, is to say, let us put everything into the mix and follow the law. After all, this is an unauthorized project. If the concern is that it goes for one more year, what is wrong with that, as long as we get it right? Because this will have a big impact on my constituents. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my friend from eastern Washington's amendment. I think it is the right thing to do in order to clarify where ICBEMP is going. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill). (Mr. HILL of Montana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HILL of Montana. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, my constituents are deeply concerned about this interior Columbia Basin management plan. They see this as kind of a classical bait and switch that occurred. Basically what happened is that the Clinton administration proposed this study as a scientific assessment so that we would have a regionwide science that could be applied to the individual forests for the development and the renewal of the individual forest management plans. In the process, the administration went to the local governments and solicited their input and their participation and invited them to participate in the process. As a consequence of that, there was pretty broad support for doing this scientific assessment, because, as the gentleman from California pointed out, it was necessary for us to be able to have local forest management plans, to have regionwide science in the development of those plans. But along the way, things changed. The administration decided that it was going to shift this from a scientific assessment to a decision- making document. What does that mean? It means that the standards and the rules and regulations that would be determined in interior Columbia Basin would be imposed on the local forests. The consequence of that is that now the individual forests cannot make individual forest management decisions. They have to comply with an increasing number of standards and rules and regulations that are on a regionwide basis. We have heard some talk out here about the success of this in a narrow regional area west of the Cascades. But, Mr. Chairman, the forests and the BLM lands that are being impacted by interior Columbia Basin are diverse. The species of trees is diverse. The elevations are diverse. The amount of rainfall that occurs is diverse. There is little similarity in these forests except that they are all part of the Columbia River drainage. In any event, the administration then determined that it was going to basically override the intent of Congress. Congress has said it wants forest management, land management decisions made locally by making an overriding regional decision document. The problem today is that this Interior-Columbia Basin issue and the Reg Flex issue is kind of caught up in a bigger set of issues. Because right now we have the designation of national monuments going on, the roadless forest initiative going on, mineral and oil and gas withdrawals of the Clinton administration, proposals to breach the dams on the Snake River and ICBEMP all occurring at one time. It is no wonder that the people in this region feel like there is a war being declared on them with all these things happening. What the gentleman from Washington's amendment is trying to do is deal with just one narrow area. That says that if ICBEMP is going to go through and it is going to be a decision-making document, then let us make sure that it complies with all the laws. If the goal of this device is to eliminate injunctions in court overriding local decisions, then it has to comply with all the law. That is what this amendment intends to do. I urge the support of the amendment. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) who is a valued member of the subcommittee. Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, one of the more unfortunate aspects of the present majority's rule of this House over the last several years has been this propensity to attach antienvironmental riders to appropriations bills. Essentially that is what we have here today in this particular context. Seven years ago, the administration embarked upon a plan to improve environmental management in the Columbia River Basin. All of the land affected by this plan, by the way, and very importantly, is public land. It is not private land. It is public land. It is land owned by all of the people of the country. So my constituents in New York as well as every constituent of every Member of this House has a stake in the development of this plan to manage important public resources in the Columbia River basin. That project has gone forward. It has gone forward very carefully, very intelligently, and in a very open way. An environmental impact statement has been produced. A supplemental environmental impact statement has been produced. All of the activities here have been based on good, sound, responsible science. The intention is to improve habitat in the Columbia River, to improve habitat for bull trout, for salmon, to improve recreational resources, to improve timber resources, and to have a comprehensive plan which will stand and which will allow people all across the spectrum, from recreational uses all across the spectrum to extracted uses to be able to use this public land in the most effective and efficient way. Now we have this amendment to the Dicks amendment which would block [[Page H4506]] implementation of this Pacific Northwest plan for forest watersheds and endangered species. It would do so by attempting to superimpose an aspect of the small business law onto the environmental law, to take one piece of a law and inappropriately attach it to a situation where it does not belong, has no standing, has no meaning and makes no sense. Therefore alone, for that reason alone, just on the structural basis of it, the technical aspects of it, this amendment ought to be rejected. But it ought to be rejected on much more solid ground and much more important ground, and that is this, we are here discussing the future of a very important part of America. Again, I emphasize, a part owned by all of the citizens of this country, held in trust by the Federal Government, administered by the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies within the Department of the Interior. Now, everybody has a responsibility to make sure that this works and this antienvironmental rider inappropriately attached to this bill ought to be very soundly and solidly rejected. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that just because someone says that it is an antienvironmental rider does not mean that it is. This is complying with the law. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) who is from the region that is affected by this study, not from outside our region. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to follow somebody from New York who has a district along the river much like the Columbia River, the Hudson River. There is a lot of similarity there. The difference is they do not have this kind of a planning process in place by the Federal Government, ICBEMP. I want to talk for a moment, Mr. Chairman, about the relationship of this requirement for this rule. The GAO, the General Accounting Office general counsel wrote in July of 1997 a letter to Congress that a national forest land and resource management plan generally was considered a rule for the purposes of this Small Business Regulatory Act. Failure to comply with this act is judicially reviewable and courts have invalidated agency rules on this basis. All we are asking here is for this administration to follow the law. And if there is a question about whether this is legal or not, would it not be time for this administration to err on the side of following the law if there is a question? Would that not be refreshing? Mr. Chairman, let me talk for a moment about the monument issue, because we have heard a lot about the Antiquities Act. I have a copy of the relevant statute here. Let me read from it, that ``any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument or any object of an antiquity situated on the lands owned or controlled by the government of the United States.'' {time} 1145 That is what we are talking about, these objects, these archeological fines. It goes on to say, that the Government may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. And then it goes on to talking about archeological sites, small little objects, and we are going to protect the land around it. Ladie

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 15, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4498-H4567] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Pursuant to House Resolution 524 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4578. {time} 1039 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4578) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday June 14, 2000, the amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) had been disposed of and the bill [[Page H4499]] was open for amendment from page 53 line 10 through page 53 line 22. Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, the amendment by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), adding a new section at the end of title I, if offered, shall begin with his initial 5-minute speech in support of the amendment. No further debate on that amendment shall be in order. Amendments to that amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) or the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), each shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence of both the chairman and the ranking member to allow me to speak out of turn. The reason I would like to address the House this morning is with respect to the roadless forest initiative. My colleague and friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), had originally looked at introducing some limitation amendments on the roadless forest initiative and as he will say shortly has decided not to introduce them. In some ways I regret that but I certainly respect his decision. I rise in opposition to the roadless forest initiative. I represent a national forest that was once the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forest. Like so many others, I have a concern over the effect of the roadless forest initiative on the economy of my district and the health and safety of our national forests. I would like to make three brief quick points this morning to show the breadth of opposition in my home area to this roadless forest initiative. First, local units of government in the State of Wisconsin in general, and in the Eighth Congressional District, oppose the roadless forest initiative. The Wisconsin Counties Association opposes it. The Counties of Vilas and Oneida and Oconto and others oppose it. They oppose it because they understand how dependent our communities and our economy is upon the national forest, recreation, and timber harvesting. They also oppose it because they recognize that cutting off these forests to human access poses substantial fire and safety risks. Point number two, the roadless forest initiative violates a historic compact between local units of government and the Federal Government. This national forest in northern Wisconsin was created in the 1920s. There were a series of transactions between local units of government, county forests, the private sector and the Federal Government. On record, on the public record and in public documents, specifically these transactions were made with an understanding that access to the national forests would be maintained, in fact, explicitly that commercial access to the forests would be maintained. Yet, the roadless forest initiative, if it is implemented, would break that understanding, would break that agreement. Very clearly, the Federal Government is on the verge of breaking its word with the people of northeastern Wisconsin and very clearly these local leaders would never, would never, have transferred county forest to the national forest if they knew that years down the line we would go back on our word. Finally and most damning, the Forest Service employees of northern Wisconsin themselves oppose the roadless forest initiative. The very people being called upon to implement the roadless forest initiative oppose it. They have taken a formal position through Local 2165 of the National Federation of Federal Employees, they have taken a formal position against the roadless forest initiative. They understand the difficulties of enforcing it. They understand how it will do tremendous damage to our way of life and they understand how the roadless forest initiative has failed to take into account the local concerns in northern Wisconsin. I will later place in the Record these resolutions demonstrating the clear opposition in northern Wisconsin to this initiative. Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) indicated, we were prepared to offer up to several amendments to block the roadless initiative and the road management rule. Instead, through conversations with the Chair and the ranking member, we have decided not to. These policies and rules that are currently pending before the National Forest Service are still pending. We will have time in the months ahead to help fashion and mold hopefully something we can all live with. Let me just take a few minutes here and explain what is going on with the roadless initiative and the road management policy. {time} 1045 These are new Forest Service policies. They are decisions affecting the national forests throughout the country. They are not found in any of the local-national forest management plans, and they are developed without a local input and without local forest officials' input. Now, the roadless initiative on the face of it does not sound too bad, because it includes defined roadless areas. In my two national forests in Ottawa, that is 4,600 acres and in the Hiawatha National Forest, that is 7,600 acres. We could probably agree that, in those areas that are identified, it makes some sense not to put roads; and we agree that could make some sense. But then it calls for other unroaded areas, other unroaded areas. We do not know the size of those areas. We do not know where they are located. It cannot be simply identified. So if we cannot identify the other unroaded areas, why would we let a policy go through and we as Members of this Congress allow a policy to go through that we have no clue, no clue where these other areas are. Talk to Washington officials, they say one's local officials know. Talk to our local forest officials, and we have had hearings on this part, and they said we do not know because we do not have the guidelines. So they would let a policy go through. Look, the proper role on roadless initiative, identify the areas; and if one wants it to be a wilderness area, that is a proper role of Congress. We should do it. Proposals undetermine other roaded areas. It limits one's access. It limits one's use. It limits one's enjoyment of the forest. If it was the roadless initiative, we could probably live with that, but look at what else is going on at the same time. At the exact time is this thing called road management rule. The only way one can build a road in the national forest if this road management rule goes through is if there is a compelling reason for a road. Temporary roads that we use and rely on for fire fighting, for insect control, for harvesting timber are not recognized. No more temporary roads, none whatsoever. Who has to agree to it? Not the local foresters, but the regional forester. In Milwaukee, they are going to decide for Michigan and Wisconsin whether or not there is going to be a road in northern Michigan regardless of what the local forestry officials say. So it virtually bans road construction and reconstruction. So in other words, one cannot even fix up a forest road if this policy goes through, only essential classified roads, no feeder roads, no feeder roads. It does not recognize temporary roads for forest timbers. So put the roadless initiative with this road management rule that no one knows anything about, put it together, and one has new policies, new rules that will supersede existing locally developed forest management plans in our national forest. The results are one is going to have a national policy that says one size fits all. We lose our local control. There is no control input. Economic impact is not even recognized. For northern Wisconsin and northern Michigan and Minnesota, we rely upon our national forests, not just for timber sales, for recreation, no personal enjoyment, for hunting; but one has no input. Those economies are not even recognized as we develop these policies. Last but not least, the new policies and rules change the established use of the forest, the access to the forest, and the activities that can be performed within the forest. [[Page H4500]] What we have here, as we have debated this bill many times in the past, legislative attempts to limit road building, to limit reconstruction of roads in our national forests. They cannot pass that. They cannot come before Congress and legislatively pass it. So they are doing this back-door approach through a rulemaking process on road management that there is no input. One can write one's comments, but there is not a meeting anywhere in the United States where people from the local national forest did come and confront the local forest people and say here is what we need roads for. Why cannot one reconstruct this one road that goes to our lake? Because they are going to put through an administrative rule underneath the Administrative Procedures Act. So I urge all Members to look at the roadless initiative. When one applies the road management on top of that roadless initiative, we have serious problems with what is going on in our national forests. I ask them to be vigilant and fight these policies by the National Forest Service. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), ranking member, for allowing the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and I to proceed outside of order. New Forest Service Policies/Rules (Decisions affecting National Forests; not found in Forest Management Plans; developed without local community & local forest officials input) roadless initiative (Includes defined Roadless Areas and undefined ``other unroaded'' areas) Wilderness Designation is proper role of Congress. Proposes undetermined ``other unroaded areas''. Limits access, use & enjoyment of forest. road management rule (Only if compelling reason for a road; no ``temp'' roads; EIS signed by Regional Forester) Virtually bans forest road construction & reconstruction. Only essential classified roads (no feeder roads). Does not recognize temporary roads for timber harvest. new policies/rules that supersede existing locally developed Forest Plans--Results National Policy--``one size-fits-all'' mentality, loss of local control. Economic Impact--not recognized, local economies depend on National Forests. New Policies/Rules--change established uses, access & activities. Amendment Offered By Mr. Dicks The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report copy B of the Dicks amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks: On page 52, after line 15, add the following new section: Sec. . Any limitation imposed under this Act on funds made available by this Act related to planning and management of national monuments, or activities related to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan shall not apply to any activity which is otherwise authorized by law. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House yesterday, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which would overcome section 334 and 335 of the Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. My amendment seeks to overcome the funding limitation imposed in the bill under section 334 and 335 relating to the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan, known as ICBEMP, and the design, planning, and management of national monuments. Both of these provisions are objectionable to the Clinton administration, and the committee has received a letter from the Office of Management and Budget director Jack Lew stating that the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto unless these riders are removed. Section 334 of the bill would stop the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, ICBEMP, from going forward. The author of the provision included report language to the bill language stating concern that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are not in compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Flexibility Act by completing a regulatory flexibility analysis. The administration, on the other hand, believes that such an analysis is not required. This is a major issue in this debate. Now, I understand that the author of the amendment may have concerns about the agencies complying with all laws, but I have been assured by the administration that they are, in fact, in compliance with all existing Federal laws and, therefore, object to the inclusion of this provision which would basically stop their work on this particular project. Further, I do not know whether the author of the amendment does or does not support the Columbia Basin Project's goals, but I think it is vitally important to articulate why it should go forward and not be stopped with a rider in this Interior appropriations bill. The Columbia Basin Project was initiated by President Clinton in 1993 to respond to landscape-scale issues, including forest and rangeland health, the listing of Snake River salmon, bull trout protection, and treaty and trust responsibilities to the Tribes in the area. It also sought to bring more certainty and stability to the communities located in the Columbia River Basin, which were impacted by these events. What we had before were literally dozens of smaller management plans that only addressed specific areas within the basin. The goal of ICBEMP was to better assemble each individual plan into a more coordinated watershed-based program. ICBEMP has several goals. Among them is to better protect the habitat important to threatened and endangered species and also to provide a long-term plan for mining, grazing, and timber harvest, all of which are still allowed under the project. It is not a land grab, nor does it take decisions out of the hands of local communities and local management offices. It is an important step to better manage these critical lands, and it has had several years in development and has received extensive public comments and participation. Section 335 prevents the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture from using any funds for the purpose of designing, planning, or management of Federal lands as national monuments which were designated since 1999. This provision attempts to restrict the designation of monuments by the President under the authority of the 1906 Antiquities Act by using a back-door method: funding limitation. A prohibition on spending funds for these monuments would not change their legal status, but it would prevent any ongoing spending within the monument areas as defined by law. I would say to all of my colleagues who had monuments declared, that the author of the amendment chose not to cover his monument, but he is covering our colleagues' monuments. The author of the amendment included language in the Interior Appropriations report to accompany the bill which states: ``Nothing in this language prevents either Secretary from managing these Federal lands under their previous management plans.'' But the bill language clearly states that no money shall be expended for the purpose of design, planning, or management of Federal lands as national monuments. Once the President has acted to designate these lands, they are legally designated and would thus be subject to the spending limitation. All this provision would do is ensure that no Federal dollars by our land and resource management agencies could be spent in these areas. A monument designation does not lock up these lands. Quite the contrary, monument status does not preclude such activities as grazing or mining. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.) Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, monument status also involves an extensive community involvement process so that programs can be established for all public uses. Hunting, fishing, hiking, canoeing are all allowed in these areas. But they would all be stopped if we could not do necessary wildlife surveys and environmental programs. This provision would not allow any funds to be spent for law enforcement [[Page H4501]] and staffing in the monument. In the areas where there are visitors' centers, they would be closed because the provision would preclude any funds from being spent to operate, maintain, or staff them. I understand that some of the President's recent designations have been controversial. But he has had, in each instance, the complete authority to act under the jurisdiction of the 1906 Antiquities Act. If the authorizing committees, and I note the presence of the chairman of the authorizing committee, if the authorizing committee of jurisdiction wishes to reexamine the Antiquities Act or wishes to pass legislation to cancel any specific monument designation, then they should do so. But the inclusion of this provision and the other provisions are ill- advised and ensure a veto by the President. I urge support of my amendment and hope the House agrees that these provisions should not be included in this bill. Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Nethercutt to the Amendment Offered By Mr. Dicks Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment to the amendment. The text of the amendment to the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 46 offered by Mr. Nethercutt to the amendment offered by Mr. Dicks: Strike ``monuments,'' and insert ``monuments or''. Strike ``, or activities related to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan''. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 14, 2000, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt). Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the Dicks amendment would strike the provision in the Dicks amendment concerning the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, called ICBEMP. First and foremost, the linkage of the national monuments portion of the Dicks amendment with the Interior-Columbia Basin Management Project language in his amendment requires that they be separated. They are not the same. They are completely different. They have no relevance to each other. They have no relationship to each other. Therefore, on that point alone, my amendment should be adopted. My amendment seeks to strip the ICBEMP language from the Dicks amendments. So that is point number one, and that is the simplest way to look at this whole issue. The second issue and the reason for removing it from the Dicks amendment is that this ICBEMP project was begun in 1993 as a scientific assessment of eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. Now, I want my colleagues and the chairman to keep this in mind, it started as a scientific assessment. We were going to take a look at the ecosystem condition of eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. The scientific findings were to be used as forest and Bureau of Land Management districts updated their land management plans. Since 1993, this administration has grown this project to a size that encompasses Idaho, western Montana, parts of Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. {time} 1100 Seven States, 144 million acres, are affected by what started out as an assessment informally. Even more troubling is that it has grown to a scope that it has now become a decision-making document with standards, meaning that the recommendations of the project managers will automatically amend the land use plans in the region. The seven-State region; 144 million acres. In 1998, the House had this issue before it. It voted to keep the Columbia Basin project advisory in nature. Not a rulemaking, not a decision-making document, but advisory. That language, which I sponsored and which was adopted by the House, rejected the idea that it should be more than advisory in nature. Unfortunately, in the negotiations on this whole issue at the last minute with respect to the omnibus appropriations, that language was sacrificed by the leadership and on the insistence of the President. Section 334 of the bill, language which I put in, requires the Forest Service and the BLM to comply with existing law. That is the second broad but important point in this whole debate. It requires this administration to follow existing law, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, prior to finalizing any interior Columbia Basin ecosystem management project record of decision. What is happening here, and those of us in the West understand this, is that this administration has time and time again tried to rush to judgment, to have a record of decision that will have the effect of law and that will affect dramatically the land use ability and land use of the western States, the seven western States which are part of this so- called study. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act passed overwhelmingly in this House, signed into law in 1996, requires agencies to do this simple task: Examine and mitigate for the impact that a proposed rule will have on small entities. This administration knows that the small entities, the small rural communities of eastern Washington and the seven western States that I mentioned, are impacted by this outside of the power that they have to stop it. So the only resource we have is to make sure that this administration complies with the law, and that is what this amendment does. It says before a record of decision is issued, Federal agencies must comply with the law that exists, that was signed into law by this President. I heard my friend from Washington say that he has an assurance from the administration that they do not have to comply with the law in this case; that this act does not apply to them. Only this administration would urge that the Congress ignore the obligation that this administration has to comply with the law. Only this administration would do that. So I am not persuaded by the assurance that we have been given that this law, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act does not apply. It applies, and there are court decisions that confirm that it applies. The General Accounting Office has issued a report confirming that it applies. This plan, the ICBEMP plan, is going to amend 62 individual land use plans in the West. It is going to amend land use plans on 32 national Forest Service and BLM administrative units in this project area. It will replace three interim strategies. The project is clearly a rule, and there are court decisions that say so. Failure to comply with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act is judicially reviewable by courts, and courts have invalidated agency rules on this basis, against Mr. Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, in 1998. Evidence is that the agencies have been wrong about this before. Over $56 million have been spent on this project. It is not authorized. This Congress has not authorized this project. The northwest industries have indicated to me that if a regulatory flexibility analysis is not completed, as required by law, and again that is all we are trying to do is have this administration comply with the law, they will pursue litigation which will throw this whole study into turmoil. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that the project does not leave itself open to litigation, if a record of decision is issued without having completed a regulatory flexibility analysis. This is overreaching by the administrative agencies of this government, by this administration, by the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the BLM. They are trying to go around the law, and that is wrong. That is wrong for rural America, it is wrong for the States that are represented in the West, and we should not let it happen. So this should be separated out from this amendment because it does not apply to the national monuments issue. It applies to the fairness and the obligation to small businesses to be [[Page H4502]] true to the law, and this administration is lacking in that regard if it tries to go forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my good friend and colleague that 7 years is hardly a rush to judgment. I want my colleagues to hear the language of this limitation in this appropriation bill. It says right here, ``None of the funds made available under this act may be used to issue a record of decision or any policy implementing the interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project not prepared pursuant to law, as set forth in chapter 6 of Title V of the United States Code.'' In all my years of being on the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, the relevance of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act has been somewhat questionable. But let us talk about the analysis that is done in an Environmental Impact Statement. It looks at the socioeconomic impact of the EIS. Now, either we can get serious and decide we want to really pass legislation, and this bill. Frankly, it is fatally flawed, but these limitations are objectionable to the administration every single year because they offend the process. We do not have hearings, we do not get into great detail on these things and, frankly, and the gentleman, of course, has been here for a number of years, but that is why we have authorizing committees and that is why in most instances we should let the authorizing committees deal with these substantive issues and not deal with them in the appropriations process. I think on both sides of the aisle there has been a consensus that we should not do these limitations unless there is just absolutely no other way to deal with the problem. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) in opposition to the Nethercutt amendment. Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time to speak against the Nethercutt amendment and in favor of the Dicks amendment. First, as it relates to what my friend from Spokane has advanced, I think it is important to allow the Columbia Basin Ecosystem plan to proceed. If adopted by this chamber, the Nethercutt amendment would retain the anti-environmental rider, which would block the implementation of this Pacific Northwest plan for forests, watersheds and endangered species. It is true that it has grown somewhat in terms of scope and dimension. It has done so because that is what has been dictated as in the best interests of the region that we all care about and in terms of what will make the most difference. Careful long-term planning is a help, not an impediment, to the various challenges that we face in the Pacific Northwest. I have heard my colleague more than once on this floor talk about the problems how this has stretched out over 7 years at a cost of $45 million. Well, adoption of this amendment, and subjecting yet another requirement to this plan, is only going to make the process more expensive and more time consuming. And, indeed, Congress itself is in no small measure a culprit. Every year that I have been here, since 1996, the Committee on Appropriations has been interfering with the orderly implementation of this review. Now, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) pointed out, the extension of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act to this study is something that has never before been required. It is vigorously disputed as to its applicability. But most important it opens up a very real possibility that we are going to block the potential Federal Government activity to improve the environmental and management activities in the Columbia River basin. It is going to make it more likely, not less likely, that a court is going to intervene, possibly issuing a decree that could mandate management plan changes and entirely halting the production of goods and services on Federal lands in project areas throughout its deliberations, and the variety of little pieces that are involved there. It is wrong. We ought to get on with this business. It has the greatest potential of solving some very real problems that we in the Pacific Northwest face. I would like to speak, if I could for a moment, to something that I consider even more insidious, and that is the underlying amendment that would include restrictions on the ability to have funding to implement the National Monuments Act. This is a major policy adjustment, as has been suggested by my colleague from Washington, and it would have severe, I hope unintended, consequences. Some may applaud at the prospect of not having law enforcement on our public lands, but that is an extreme position that would not be approved by my constituents, nor I think by the constituents of at least most of us in this Chamber. It is not going to do us any good to not be able to regulate off-road vehicles, law enforcement, mining, the grazing activities. This is categorically wrongheaded, and it is, in and of itself, why the administration will veto the bill. They would have no choice. But it is an example of the environmental extremism that we hear so often about on the other side of the aisle. If my colleagues do not like the Antiquities Act, they should go ahead and repeal it. If they do not like what the President has done in any specific designation, they should have the courage to bring a specific bill to Congress and undo it. They do not because these are popular actions, they are things that would be supported by this Chamber, and the environmental extremists on the other side of the aisle would rather play havoc with our ability to manage public land in an orderly fashion. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's point is right on target, as far as I am concerned. The gentleman mentioned this Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. According to the Department of the Interior, the House requires, under this amendment, the Federal Government to prepare analysis, to their knowledge, that has never been prepared for any land use planned effort, no matter its scope. As a result, the House action will unreasonably extend the duration of planning for this project, which, in part, due to requirements placed on the Federal Government by riders to every full year appropriation for Interior since 1996, has already taken 7 years to complete at considerable cost to the American taxpayer. The thing that I worry about is that we are going to get ourselves into the same mess we did before the forest plan was put into place, and that is that a Federal judge is going to say that we have not done the right things in terms of watershed protection, that we are not protecting these fish under the Endangered Species Act. He will stop all the logging, all the mining, all the grazing, and an injunction issue. And that is the worst possible outcome. So I am saying to the gentleman from Washington, who I do consider to be a friend and a thoughtful person, that it is time now to let this process go forward and finish this EIS and make the changes that are necessary to protect the bull trout, to protect the salmon runs on the Snake River, to make sure that we are doing the watershed protection so that we do not get the Endangered Species Act implemented in an adverse way in the gentleman's area. But we cannot simply do nothing. We cannot just say we have no plan, no strategy. I have supported both gentlemen from Washington on the issue of the Snake River dams. But if we are not going to take out the Snake River dams, then we have to do other things to protect the habitat, to deal with hatchery problems, to deal with harvest. And protecting the habitat is a major part of this requirement in order to protect these fish. I am going to let the gentlemen on the other side here have a chance, because I know the gentleman from Alabama is ready to go, but this amendment is offered in good constructive spirit. I think the strategy of trying to stop any change here is simply not going to work. It is going to wind up with the Endangered Species Act being applied by the Federal judges in a way none of us want, and so we have to make some hard decisions. [[Page H4503]] {time} 1115 We cannot say no to everything. That is why I supported the protection of the Hanford Reach. Because if we are not going to take out the dams, at least we will protect these salmon in the Hanford Reach. So I appreciate my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) yielding to me on this. This is something I feel very strongly about. I think the strategy here of continuing to delay this is a mistaken strategy, and that is why I offered this amendment. And I appreciate speaking on it. Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just conclude by expressing three things. First, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) in attempting to balance a very complex set of issues that we deal with in the Pacific Northwest. And oftentimes I know he must feel like he is the man in the middle. But I think he has addressed this in a direct and forthright manner. I do not think there is anybody in the Pacific Northwest who has worked harder to reach out to try to find middle ground and to avoid the catastrophe, I think, on all sides of these controversies. If we are going to cede our ability to plan in a thoughtful and manageable fashion and have it done on a piecemeal basis via the courts, I think we ought to move forward in terms of supporting what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has proposed. I want to make clear that, as far as the national monuments are concerned, my Republican colleagues have been in control here for the last 4 years, and they have been unable to fashion a compromise acceptable to the American public to go ahead and repeal this legislation. And we have been in fact left with, and I am pleased that we still have, an Antiquities Act that has been utilized by 14 Presidents over the course of the better part of this last century, since 1906, Republicans and Democrats alike. I think it would be a tragedy for this House to use this back-door attempt to try and take away a power to have disastrous consequences on lands that belong to the American public, and they want us to exercise this sort of stewardship. I would ask them to at least have the decency to bring forward legislation to repeal the Antiquities Act and do this in a straightforward fashion. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Utah. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and everybody on that side voted for two pieces of legislation to not repeal it but to take care of it. And what the gentleman has said and the other gentleman has said about law enforcement and other areas is just not true. What this does, if this gets through, all that ground will stay under the management plan it now has, which allows for law enforcement, which allows for cars. It does not make any changes whatsoever. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, that is simply not what the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service say. They say that once it is designated as a monument, this amendment applies. They cannot do law enforcement, they cannot do planning, they cannot take care of the visitor. They legally changed the designation and thus would be impacted. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would be happy if he would put in there to repeal that project. I would be very happy to have him do that. And when all else fails, read it and he will see he is wrong. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I am going to say this slowly to my friends on the other side just so we keep our eye on the ball here. This requires that the agencies of the Federal Government to deal in land management comply with the law. Talk about lawsuits. We are going to have big lawsuits if they do not comply with the law and adopt this amendment. That is what we are talking about here. The means to do justify the end. That is what this administration seems to want to do is just say, we do not care about the law, we just want to get this done. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Resources. Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, it has been an interesting conversation. I will stay away from the monuments, but we will talk about that later. We did vote on them on this floor. If the gentleman did not vote for it, he was not doing his duty. I am a little disappointed that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) opposes the Nethercutt amendment. The Nethercutt amendment does exactly what he says it does, it follows the law. I know the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) likes to follow the law. He goes to the State of Alaska and catches all my salmon. And the best thing I want to do is have the salmon reestablished on the Columbia River so he quits raiding my fish in Alaska. I mean, especially when he takes numerous amounts of those fish that I would like to take myself. I would like to suggest one thing. The Nethercutt amendment does exactly what is correct, following the laws that this Congress passed. But this administration has a great tendency to not to follow the law in any way, shape, or form. This is their habit. This is their MO. They care little about this Congress. We are going to do what we think is right and forget the people of America. Now, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) said it exactly right, the Columbia initiative was in fact a designation and a study on the Columbia River concerning mostly Oregon and Washington, Montana, Idaho, State River, Columbia River, etc.; and it is all being done by the agencies. And my colleagues want to have a decision that goes against the laws on the books today, a decision made by an administration that does not really follow the law? They want to include this Congress in that decision on how it will affect the local economy? They want to have a decision made now so we do not have further actions by the judicial branch? I am going to suggest, respectfully, if the Nethercutt amendment is not adopted it will end up in court and nothing will occur and no solution will be reached. So I am suggesting that the Nethercutt amendment is the right way to go. This is what should be done and will be done if we do what is right. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise in opposition to the Nethercutt amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is very poorly directed in a sense that if my colleagues are complaining about whether or not it is too expensive, I think this amendment only makes this process far more expensive. I think, also, the amendment is targeted at trying to declare the Basin Management Plan something that it is not, and that is that it is not a regulatory process, it is a management plan. All of us have gone through this. We have gone through this in the Sierra Mountains, where we have known that we cannot deal with this on an individualized little watershed bill; we have got to look at the entire ecosystem. In California we just completed with the governor and the Secretary of Interior the Cal Fed plan. Why? Because if we do not do that, it is very clear that all the pieces in and of themselves are deficient and they are deficient so we end up shutting down the water system in California, whether it is the irrigation system for our farmers, whether it is the drinking water for our cities, because the system cannot be operated in such a fashion. In order to stave that off, we engaged in comprehensive basin management just as we are talking about on the Columbia River. Because the gentleman from Washington is right, if we stop this process, if we kill this process, then we go back to the status quo. And [[Page H4504]] the status quo, it is a no-brainer for a court to put them right back into the situation that they are in on the other side of the mountains, on the western side, where they had chaos, where they had just chaos ruling in terms of whether people lost their jobs or communities did not do well or whether the forests were harvested or not harvested. This is a chance to get ahead of that curve. They spent $15 million trying to get ahead of that curve. They had endless meetings with local towns and communities and political subdivisions and all of that. And the question is, can they come up with a plan so they can continue to improve this, may continue the viability of the basin. This is no different than what we are confronting all over the West. And we are doing it so that we can escape the chaos of individualized slapping down of endangered species problems and all the rest of that. Because that is why this plan came into being, because we know what we can front down the road. So it is very easy that if they stop this, in fact, the evidence is so clear on its face that the judge simply decides that they cannot provide the level of management to provide the kinds of protections that are necessary to the habitat, to the watersheds, to the species; and, therefore, they are back into chaos. And it is difficult. We have been at this a number of years in California with the Cal Fed process. As difficult as it is, all parts of the puzzle recognize that, with a comprehensive management plan, they in fact are in a better place than what they would be. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with the fact about how complicated and difficult these are to work through. I think we would all agree on that. But what I keep hearing is how ICBEMP is going to resolve this issue just as the Northwest Forest Plan was resolved on the West side. Is the gentleman arguing that the Northwest Forest Plan is a success and has met its goals? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am arguing that what we have learned is that, absent comprehensive plans that address all facets of the various large basins, the large systems, whether it is the Sierra or the Columbia River or the California water system, absent that, what they get is they get back into chaos because the individual attempts are not sufficient to provide the level of protection. So they find themselves with the court running their systems as opposed to the political leadership and the local communities. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say this. We have been through this. On the West side, we were enjoined by the Federal judge, no timber harvesting. Zero. The new administration came in and held a summit in Portland, and nobody was entirely pleased with the outcome, but we got the injunctions lifted. We got some timber harvest restored. We got a $1.2 billion-a-year plan to help the communities deal with these problems. And we moved on. What we are talking about here with the Nethercutt amendment is going back to the way we used to do business, and that way is going to lead us to the Federal Court's injunction. And, again, he is going to hurt his own people. That is why I do not understand why he is doing this. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Because, as my colleague knows, the court is back saying the plan that has been put forward after that has been done on the Northwest Forest Plan is still not in compliance. Because the survey and manage requirements that were shoved in in the dark of night by this administration says the Forest Service has been unable and may indeed be incapable of meeting. We still are not achieving the goals of that plan. My point in this debate right here, right now, is that to use that as an example of success is not fair when it has been a failure. I agree we have got to have the science in place. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that is the case. Listen, they are going to continue to challenge us on Cal Fed from either side, from the agricultural side and from the environmental side. They will continue to challenge us on the Sierra plan. But the fact that they have a plan in place allows the judge to look at that in a much different fashion than if they have nothing in place so the judge can then tinker with the plan, but they are not back into wholesale injuctions on an eco-wide system. So that plan is serious, serious insulation from going back to where they were. I mean, maybe time has erased our memory what was going on in the Northwest. But take ourselves back to the late 1980s and 1990s, we had total chaos. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, so what he is arguing is that, if we are going to err at all, we need to err on the side of following the law. Right? Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. No. The gentleman can say whatever he wants to say. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. But the General Accounting Office, in 1997, says that this does constitute a rule in their opinion and, therefore, this small business would follow. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, and obviously, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture seriously disagree with that. Let us not pretend that they do not. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just say to my friend from California, not from the Northwest, this is not killing the process at all. We are just requiring that the agencies of the Government comply with the law. The means do not justify the end. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules. {time} 1130 Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend from Eastern Washington for all the work that he has been doing on this issue. I do enjoy working with my friend from western Washington. We have worked on a lot of issues together that is obviously important to my district. I do appreciate that very much. But on this issue, obviously there is a basic difference as to how we should approach our economy and our resources in our given area. It is an honest difference of opinion, I think. What I find very interesting in the arguments that I have heard heretofore from my friend from western Washington and my friend from Oregon, they were saying that if we do not like this process by going through the appropriation process, we ought to use the authorizing process. I have always been a proponent of that, but I would make this point very clear. ICBEMP was never authorized. It was done at a time in 1993 when that side of the aisle controlled both houses of the Congress and for some reason they felt that they did not need to authorize this project. It was put in an appropriations bill and now we are living with the consequences of something that has grown from $5 million now to $56 million. It has kind of grown like Topsy and it has grown in scope, too. Let me make a couple of points that were made by those on the other side as far as their arguments. In his opening remarks, my friend from western Washington was saying that in the planning process, the ICBEMP provides more certainty and it does not take planning out of the local jurisdictions. I would just make this observation. This ICBEMP as it has been expanded in this time period covers some 105 counties in those seven States. Not one of those counties has passed a resolution in support of ICBEMP. In fact, to the contrary, 65 of those counties have passed resolutions in opposition to ICBEMP for the very reason opposite of what the gentleman said, they are concerned that this affects their planning process. [[Page H4505]] Again, this seems to be a pattern from this administration that we will have these meetings that has been mentioned a number of times, but at the end of the day we are not going to listen to the concerns of those at the local level. That seems to be a pattern over and over and over. What are the reasons why? I can state one of my large counties in my district, why they are concerned about the Federal Government doing this planning and governing in one area, in the northern part of my district in Okanogan County. They are concerned about how the Forest Service is addressing the issue of noxious weeds. They are not addressing the issue of noxious weeds in the forest land. That is going over into the private lands and it is putting a burden on the taxpayers in that area to fund the noxious weed board. That is just one example why they have a concern about the Federal Government taking over this planning. Finally, I would like to as far as the resource part of it make this observation, because the Endangered Species Act has been a threat, that if we do not do this, the Endangered Species Act is going to preempt everything, and we will end up in a bad situation. I would make this observation, that unless we listen to the local people that are affected, we are going to be in worse shape than we ever possibly think we could. Because it seems to me the implicit idea or thought process of this administration is to not trust those that are elected at the local level to make decisions. I find that, frankly, wrong. There is another example in my district where local people have worked together trying to comply with the Endangered Species Act as it is written right now through the HCP process. That was signed a couple of years ago by the Chelan and Douglas County PUDs. It still has not gone through the whole NEPA process yet, but they are very confident that if they go through that process, they can live to the letter of the law with the Endangered Species Act. I for one, by the way, think that the Endangered Species Act ought to be changed, but in the letter of the law they can. Why? Because this is local people working together to come to a solution. But ICBEMP, the way it is structured and what we have seen does not allow for that to happen. Finally, from the regulatory standpoint here with my friend from eastern Washington's amendment. This area that we are talking about is largely an agricultural area. There is no huge urban area like Portland, Oregon or like Tacoma or like the Bay Area in California. There is no large urban area like that. It is largely agriculture. If we do not know what the impact is going to be on the farm implement dealers or the farm chemical dealers or the food processors who are largely smaller businesses in that area, then we are not doing a service to those that are going to be affected. That is all that this amendment does, is to say, let us put everything into the mix and follow the law. After all, this is an unauthorized project. If the concern is that it goes for one more year, what is wrong with that, as long as we get it right? Because this will have a big impact on my constituents. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my friend from eastern Washington's amendment. I think it is the right thing to do in order to clarify where ICBEMP is going. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill). (Mr. HILL of Montana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HILL of Montana. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, my constituents are deeply concerned about this interior Columbia Basin management plan. They see this as kind of a classical bait and switch that occurred. Basically what happened is that the Clinton administration proposed this study as a scientific assessment so that we would have a regionwide science that could be applied to the individual forests for the development and the renewal of the individual forest management plans. In the process, the administration went to the local governments and solicited their input and their participation and invited them to participate in the process. As a consequence of that, there was pretty broad support for doing this scientific assessment, because, as the gentleman from California pointed out, it was necessary for us to be able to have local forest management plans, to have regionwide science in the development of those plans. But along the way, things changed. The administration decided that it was going to shift this from a scientific assessment to a decision- making document. What does that mean? It means that the standards and the rules and regulations that would be determined in interior Columbia Basin would be imposed on the local forests. The consequence of that is that now the individual forests cannot make individual forest management decisions. They have to comply with an increasing number of standards and rules and regulations that are on a regionwide basis. We have heard some talk out here about the success of this in a narrow regional area west of the Cascades. But, Mr. Chairman, the forests and the BLM lands that are being impacted by interior Columbia Basin are diverse. The species of trees is diverse. The elevations are diverse. The amount of rainfall that occurs is diverse. There is little similarity in these forests except that they are all part of the Columbia River drainage. In any event, the administration then determined that it was going to basically override the intent of Congress. Congress has said it wants forest management, land management decisions made locally by making an overriding regional decision document. The problem today is that this Interior-Columbia Basin issue and the Reg Flex issue is kind of caught up in a bigger set of issues. Because right now we have the designation of national monuments going on, the roadless forest initiative going on, mineral and oil and gas withdrawals of the Clinton administration, proposals to breach the dams on the Snake River and ICBEMP all occurring at one time. It is no wonder that the people in this region feel like there is a war being declared on them with all these things happening. What the gentleman from Washington's amendment is trying to do is deal with just one narrow area. That says that if ICBEMP is going to go through and it is going to be a decision-making document, then let us make sure that it complies with all the laws. If the goal of this device is to eliminate injunctions in court overriding local decisions, then it has to comply with all the law. That is what this amendment intends to do. I urge the support of the amendment. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) who is a valued member of the subcommittee. Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, one of the more unfortunate aspects of the present majority's rule of this House over the last several years has been this propensity to attach antienvironmental riders to appropriations bills. Essentially that is what we have here today in this particular context. Seven years ago, the administration embarked upon a plan to improve environmental management in the Columbia River Basin. All of the land affected by this plan, by the way, and very importantly, is public land. It is not private land. It is public land. It is land owned by all of the people of the country. So my constituents in New York as well as every constituent of every Member of this House has a stake in the development of this plan to manage important public resources in the Columbia River basin. That project has gone forward. It has gone forward very carefully, very intelligently, and in a very open way. An environmental impact statement has been produced. A supplemental environmental impact statement has been produced. All of the activities here have been based on good, sound, responsible science. The intention is to improve habitat in the Columbia River, to improve habitat for bull trout, for salmon, to improve recreational resources, to improve timber resources, and to have a comprehensive plan which will stand and which will allow people all across the spectrum, from recreational uses all across the spectrum to extracted uses to be able to use this public land in the most effective and efficient way. Now we have this amendment to the Dicks amendment which would block [[Page H4506]] implementation of this Pacific Northwest plan for forest watersheds and endangered species. It would do so by attempting to superimpose an aspect of the small business law onto the environmental law, to take one piece of a law and inappropriately attach it to a situation where it does not belong, has no standing, has no meaning and makes no sense. Therefore alone, for that reason alone, just on the structural basis of it, the technical aspects of it, this amendment ought to be rejected. But it ought to be rejected on much more solid ground and much more important ground, and that is this, we are here discussing the future of a very important part of America. Again, I emphasize, a part owned by all of the citizens of this country, held in trust by the Federal Government, administered by the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies within the Department of the Interior. Now, everybody has a responsibility to make sure that this works and this antienvironmental rider inappropriately attached to this bill ought to be very soundly and solidly rejected. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that just because someone says that it is an antienvironmental rider does not mean that it is. This is complying with the law. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) who is from the region that is affected by this study, not from outside our region. Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to follow somebody from New York who has a district along the river much like the Columbia River, the Hudson River. There is a lot of similarity there. The difference is they do not have this kind of a planning process in place by the Federal Government, ICBEMP. I want to talk for a moment, Mr. Chairman, about the relationship of this requirement for this rule. The GAO, the General Accounting Office general counsel wrote in July of 1997 a letter to Congress that a national forest land and resource management plan generally was considered a rule for the purposes of this Small Business Regulatory Act. Failure to comply with this act is judicially reviewable and courts have invalidated agency rules on this basis. All we are asking here is for this administration to follow the law. And if there is a question about whether this is legal or not, would it not be time for this administration to err on the side of following the law if there is a question? Would that not be refreshing? Mr. Chairman, let me talk for a moment about the monument issue, because we have heard a lot about the Antiquities Act. I have a copy of the relevant statute here. Let me read from it, that ``any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument or any object of an antiquity situated on the lands owned or controlled by the government of the United States.'' {time} 1145 That is what we are talking about, these objects, these archeological fines. It goes on to say, that the Government may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. And then it goes on to talking about archeological sites, small little objects, and we are going to protect the land around

Amendments:

Cosponsors: