Chris Cannon

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) was going to speak on the floor. I had hoped that we would have the opportunity to have a colloquy. Tom is the son of Stewart Udall, who was the visionary lawyer who brought the lawsuits in the first case for the downwinders and others and that resulted in the legislation that is before us. I have always felt close to Tom in particular. He is a Westerner, but I had the great privilege of serving in my first legal job in Washington, DC, as a clerk to Mr. Stewart Udall on this very case. And so I take this back over 2 decades when I first began. I will say that having read all of the documentation of all the meetings that were held as it related to the downwinders and the potential injury that was caused by our efforts, often covert during the Cold War, to expand our knowledge and understanding and our stores of nuclear weapons, that we as a Nation have a serious obligation to the people who suffered, sometimes ignorantly, but nevertheless with serious disease and life- threatening, in fact, life-ending health problems; that we as a Nation owe those people what this bill allows for. Mr. Speaker, it is people like Stewart Udall who saw the problem and worked tirelessly to move that problem forward. So I think this bill and this amendment should be a tribute to Mr. Stewart Udall, the father of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I received a communication from the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), my friend and colleague and tireless worker on this bill. I would like to summarize some of his comments. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Mexico and I both want to thank several people for their involvement in this bill. First of all, Mr. Hicks and his wife, Mr. Paul Hicks and his wife, Delfina Hicks. I am confident that Paul, who has since passed away, is looking down on the floor of the House today and smiling on the fruits of his tireless efforts. Paul, who was from Grants, New Mexico, was first a uranium miner, then a lead miner, a shift boss, and then finally a mine foreman. However, his most important work was saved for post-retirement when he began his tireless efforts to amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, by serving as the president of the New Mexico Uranium Workers Council and sacrificing his time and finances to help others. Those efforts are directly reflected in the legislation before us today. While Paul was a vocal and effective voice for the plight of the uranium miners and millers, he had lots of support from those on whose behalf he fought, numerous individuals in the private and political realm who worked towards the same goal. Former Congressman Bill Redmond introduced the legislation on which much of S. 1515 is modeled and which resulted in the legislation the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) introduced in this Congress, H.R. 1516. Navajo Nation President Kelsey Begaye and Vice President Taylor McKenzie put the resources of the Nation to work for the countless Navajo miners and millers. In addition, Melton Martinez, Ben Shelley, Lori Goodman, and numerous others worked tirelessly to better the lives of miners and millers whose health suffered as a result of their time in the mines and mills. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that this legislation, like all others, is the result of the efforts of many to obtain a common goal. I am confident that the changes in eligibility requirements, amount of working level exposure, medical documentation, addition of fallout compensation, consideration of Native American law, and addition of millers and transport workers to those eligible for compensation will make a real difference to those who quietly served their country in the uranium mines of the West. Finally, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the subcommittee chairman, and subcommittee staffer Cindy Blackstone for their support and assistance in moving this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for his comments. Did the gentleman not have someone who wanted to speak on his side?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Senate 1515, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000 updates a similar 1990 law. The law now compensates individuals exposed to radiation from either being downwind of a nuclear test blast or engaged in the mining of uranium during the Cold War. The legislation we are considering today increases the number of radiogenic and chronic diseases compensable under the 1990 act. This bill increases the number of individuals and States eligible for compensation in accordance with the scientific and medical information gathered over the past decade. S. 1515 responds to concerns raised by exposed victims and their survivors, data from the scientific and medical communities, information gained from the Department of Justice administering the program, and the Government's responsibility to see that all individuals seeking just compensation are eligible. S. 1515 makes the needed changes in the existing law to give compensation to more individuals harmed by the Government's nuclear arms testing programs. S. 1515 would amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990. The 1990 act provides payments to certain civilian individuals exposed to radiation between 1947 and 1971. Those individuals include underground uranium miners, individuals present at nuclear blast test sites, and individuals who experienced fallout from those blasts in certain geographical areas, known as downwinders. Compensation is based on documented proof of the individual's presence in each location and on the occurrence of certain cancers and diseases associated with each type of exposure to radiation. In the case of uranium miners, they had to have experienced a certain level and length of radiation exposure as well. S. 1515 would expand the number of individuals who could receive payment under the act to include aboveground uranium miners, uranium millers, and ore transporters. It would also make changes to the current law to address inadequacies in the program that have been apparent over time. In 1995, the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments released its review of the history of radiation experiments and testing and made recommendations for appropriate government responses to their findings. S. 1515 addresses the concerns raised by the advisory committee. Congress has a duty to revisit this act periodically to assure that all individuals who should be covered are included based on new science as it becomes available. This legislation revises the act to address those deficiencies that we now know exist due to information and scientific data recently gathered. The bill before us today contains a manager's amendment which embodies language worked out between the majority and the minority of the Committee on the Judiciary concerning attorneys fees and technical and conforming changes. The attorneys fees provision has been changed from a 2 percent restriction on attorneys fees to 2 percent restriction on attorneys fees if only one application needs to be submitted under the act after enactment, a 10 percent restriction on attorneys fees if more than one application needs to be submitted under the act after enactment, and a 10 percent restriction on attorneys fees for any cases where a contract for services is already in place prior to enactment. This legislation is supported by the Navajo RECA Reform Working Group, the Pueblo of Acoma, the Colorado Plateau Uranium Workers, and the Western States RECA Reform Coalition. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act is an ongoing piece of legislation. It is likely that as we learn and document more of the effects of radiation exposure, we will once again revisit the issue. In particular, I recognize there are other counties where people believe they should be included. I am committed to helping these counties document the extent of their problems and amending the act again if we come to realize that they should be covered. I look forward to working with members of the other body, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and others to continue to improve the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. This legislation will probably allow compensation to go to approximately 9,600 individuals who lost their health, and in many cases their lives, working to further this country's nuclear defense program. These people and their families need our help now. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1515) to amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I feel strongly that managing land through unilateral executive orders establishing national monuments is wrong. It ignores the role of Congress, the role of the people who live nearer and closest to the land, and the role of local elected officials. I believe the consensus-based management accomplishes more to protect the land than hierarchical mandates. Unilateral national monument designation avoids the compromise necessary for consensus and implementation of the whims of the current administration. Secretary Babbitt, in a hearing earlier this year, said, ``I believe that the Congressional delegation is the way to go.'' He continued by saying that, ``In most cases, there is now legislation, not all, but most,'' speaking of these nine recently designated monuments. ``And in the cases where we did make the designation, particularly the ones in Arizona, it was crystal clear that there was no interest in the Congress at all. In one case, there was not even a sponsor of a bill for Aqua Fria, and in the case of the Grand Canyon, the bill that was offered before this committee reduced the existing level of protection.'' If Congress concludes that the Nation's interest is best served in a manner different from what Secretary Babbitt and this administration may recommend, Secretary Babbitt apparently believes that the President should simply declare a national monument. This amendment supports constitutional process. Congress makes decisions about the management of public lands because the Constitution gives us that responsibility. We passed FLPMA in 1976 and established that we must first have the input of the locals. Secretary Babbitt and the administration have not done this with their monument designations. Congress, therefore, has the responsibility to curb this excess by this administration by refusing to fund these monuments.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Sununu's Amendment increasing funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program for the FY2001 Interior Appropriations Bill. The government has an unpaid obligation to the towns and counties containing lands owned by the federal government, since these are areas that counties do not own and cannot tax. Without PILT, local governments would be forced to eliminate essential public services that benefit residents and visitors in their respective counties. The federal government owns large portions of lands in many of the counties that I represent in Utah. For example, 93% of Garfield County is owned by the federal government. Our state uses a vast majority of the PILT reimbursements to support education. For FY2001, Utah plans to spend 49.5% of the state budget on K-12 education, among the highest in the nation. But even with this huge commitment, Utah ranks dead last in per student spending with an average of $4,008 per year compared to the national average of $6,407. With this much of the state owned by the federal government, Utah relies heavily on this PILT funding. I understand that it is difficult to reconcile the many needs in the Interior budget with the limited funds available, but the PILT program has not been sufficiently funded in the past. I urge you to consider the federal responsibility and the needs of Utah's students as you cast your vote on this amendment.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. So as I was saying, there is a 2-lane highway that divides this area. And in addition to that, it is 10 miles and more distant from the outer edge of what people normally call the Swell. We can use definitions all day long, but if the gentleman travels the area it is obvious. And again I invite everyone in Congress and across America to visit my district. There are many, many places worthy of protection and designation. But we are dealing with the Swell here; and this is an area that truly is geographically, esthetically, and dramatically different and separate from the area we are dealing with in this bill.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) aware that the roads that remain as well as, arguably, all of the other roads that have been closed preceded in existence the wilderness study designation and, in fact, have histories that go far enough back that they are probably not under the jurisdiction and control of this body to close?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CANNON. Let me point out that I think that those areas that the gentleman referred to in the pictures are now unavailable for access. Here is the problem, if I can just take a moment to help people understand this issue. It is a little complex but not very much so. We have an area that was crisscrossed with roads and has been for a long time. There is some controversy about whether or not the counties have ownership of those roads. In my mind there is no controversy. It is a matter of heavy-handed unilateral extreme groups trying to take advantage of vagueness in the law or a vagueness in the interpretation of the law in this current Department of the Interior to advance the idea that the rights to those roads do not exist. That debate has been terribly destructive to what is happening actually on the ground in the State of Utah. It has been very difficult. Now, because we have actually had this bill in the process of negotiation, the county has given an approval to the BLM to close roads that they have now closed that I think represent where that destruction has happened. Here is the problem. We have got an area the size of the State of Connecticut, and we have one BLM enforcement officer to control that whole area. They cannot do it. They cannot control all that degradation with that many roads because when somebody gets outside some of these roads that are historic roads and gets off the trail, they have to be there to find out who did it and then they have to ticket them. The problem with that is not only finding the people but the excuse that they may be not actually off a road. So what BLM has done now has limited the actual area where an off-highway vehicle can go so that they can keep much better track of what is happening. The degradation the gentleman is talking about is in fact eliminated already just in anticipation of this bill. It has been done.

Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the Boehlert amendment to the Udall amendment. I would like to start by thanking the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) who has been very active in this discussion in a way that has brought a certain collegiality, a certain friendliness to the process which I think sometimes has been missing in the past and, certainly when we get outside of these hallowed halls, it deteriorates sharply. But there are a couple of things that I would like to say to help folks here to understand what is going on here and where we are headed. First of all, to describe half a million acres as not adequately protected because it is only protected under an administrative plan does not mean that it is not significant and major protection. Secondly, let me tell a little story if I can to help give a sense of what this area means. A couple of years ago, I was invited to tour a facility of Intel in my district and little had I known that they ended up with 500 employees, it had grown virtually overnight and after I visited the facility, they asked me if I would like to speak for a few minutes to the employees, so I took a few minutes and talked about what was going on in Washington and then asked for questions. The first hand up was this question: What are you going to do about the Sam Rafael Swell? Not knowing exactly what I was into I said well, let me ask you all a question. How many of you have been motorbiking in the San Rafael Swell? Now, most of these people were new move-ins from other areas, came to Utah because it is a remarkably beautiful place where they can come to work in a high-tech environment but get out and enjoy the incredible beauties of my district. As I asked that question, how many of you have been motorbiking, I looked over at that audience, and everybody in that audience was making some multiple of $75,000 a year; these are high- tech, high-paid people, and three-quarters of the hands went up. Now, we cannot just talk in the abstract about land that people are coming from all over the world to visit, to see, and to go four- wheeling on and just say that we want a perfect wilderness bill with perfect wilderness protections when that is not going to happen, at least in the near term, and the amount of degradation that is going on by people who are not channeled into the right areas, into the areas that would probably be most interesting for them, but which would be the most robust; if you have a wash and you run down a wash on a four- wheel drive, it does not do anything. But if you have people out wandering without the right signage out there, if you do not direct people where to go and let them know what they are doing when you get them off the roads, then you are going to have massive degradation; and that has been happening today. Now, the county and BLM have done some really dramatic things. They have changed the dynamic of how we are organizing things out there. But I urge my colleagues to remember this. In an area the size of the State of Connecticut, we have one BLM enforcement official. That man cannot possibly, without immediate, without current, without right-now help, he cannot possibly help solve the problems of the degradation that is going on. This bill immediately solves the problem. In fact, BLM and the county have already significantly reduced the ability of these people to get off in the wrong areas with signage and other things.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to also yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) to answer a question.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for his involvement and effort on this issue. Recent negotiations regarding this bill have shown me just how committed the people of Emery County, Utah, are to the protection of this land. Each time that we considered a change, they have gone out of their way to accommodate the proposals. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, one of our county commissioners flew out there at great expense to negotiate language changes. He then flew back to Utah to present to a neighboring county, that is Wayne County, the expansion of the boundaries of the National Conservation Area to include such areas as Factory Butte, which, by the way, is really a beautiful area. Although the Secretary of the Interior felt comfortable with the current boundaries, Commissioner Johnson negotiated in good faith to include more land in the National Conservation Area. Even this new county, Wayne County, was willing to work with us and developed an excellent offer to expand the boundaries. The language that Mr. Boehlert is offering is this compromised language, which continues, in the spirit of this bill, to accommodate all parties. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support this amendment to Mr. Hansen's amendment.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, as we begin debate on H.R. 3605, the San Rafael Western Legacy District and National Conservation Area Act, I first would like to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), our subcommittee chairman, for his work and commitment to this legislation. Emery County and the State of Utah do not have a stronger voice in this body than the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). His continued dedication and unyielding support for this and other land management initiatives will finally prove successful in H.R. 3605. The gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) successfully shepherded this legislation through the committee process, and his efforts have given us a very strong, effective, and balanced bill. In addition, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Emery County Commissioner Randy Johnson and thank him. He has been tireless in his 3-year campaign to protect and preserve the San Rafael Swell. But for the dedication and devotion of Randy to this crusade, we would not all be here today. The people of Emery County should be proud to have such a hard-working public servant. As many of our colleagues know, we have been working on this project to protect the San Rafael Swell for over 3 years. This legislation sets up a process to preserve the remarkable area famous for such outlaws as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and many, many others of the famous western outlaws. Over the last 3 years, people in Emery County, Utah, the off-road vehicle users, the sportsmen, and others came together with county officials, landowners, and the Bureau of Land Management to approve this plan. The San Rafael Western Legacy District and Conservation Area Act would place 2.8 million acres into a Legacy District to be managed for the conservation of the region's historical and cultural resources. Similar to a National Heritage Area, this designation would allow the people of Emery County to invest in the protection of their diverse cultural, archaeological, and natural assets. Additionally, they will be able to better manage the many tourists who now strain the region's tourism infrastructure, providing the tourists with a more enjoyable visit and the region with a sustainable economy. Additionally, this bill will set aside almost a million acres as a national conservation area, withdrawn from future mining claims and closed to cross-country vehicle travel. The Secretary of Interior, in conjunction with an advisory council, will develop a management plan for the national conservation area that will provide for various lands uses and that the preservation of these amazing natural resources for future generations. This is an amazing area that is sorely in need of protection, and the national conservation area will provide that in a flexible context that incorporates the views of those closest to the land. We, as Americans, are united in our love for our public lands and our desire to use them appropriately. I introduced this bill to preserve a beautiful and historic part of the State of Utah while taking into account the local economy. It provides a process for managing the land and providing access for people who come to enjoy it. This bill represents a breakthrough in land management policy for the western United States. It gives the proper weight for citizen input in balancing wilderness preservation, commercial use, and recreation. It proves that consensus can be achieved from the ground up, rather than from the top down. Today we have an opportunity to pass landmark legislation to protect and conserve the historical and cultural values of one of the most beautiful and pristine areas in the Union. We have come a long way in our discussions by crafting legislation that is supported by the administration, the local officials, and outdoor enthusiasts. This area is experiencing record visitation, and the time to establish adequate protections is now. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3605 and preserve these lands for generations to come.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today that the House is considering H.R. 3605, San Rafael Western Legacy District and National Conservation Area Act. As my colleagues may know, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands of the Committee on Resources, and I have been working on this legislation since I came to Congress in 1997. We have made great progress, and I am especially pleased that the Secretary of the Interior has now shown that he is fully behind this bill. He supports the concept of this National Conservation Area, as well as the specific implementation of it, that the people of Emery County have developed. This bill sets aside nearly 1 million acres as a National Conservation Area, withdrawn from future mining claims and providing protection for primitive and semi-primitive areas. The Secretary of the Interior, in conjunction with an advisory council, will develop a management plan for the National Conservation Area that will allow various land uses, while simultaneously preserving the natural resources of the area for future generations. It would also place 2.8 million acres into a legacy district to be managed for the conservation of the area's historical and cultural resources, allowing management that would guarantee the preservation of the dramatic canyons, wildlife, and historic sites of the San Rafael Swell. I am pleased to be contributing to the conservation of such a beautiful and historic area. Negotiations have been ongoing for 3 years on this bill, and everyone from the Bureau of Land Management to the Secretary of the Interior to the county commission has agreed to its final form. Additionally, the county commissioners have presented it to as many groups as they could find to participate, and received agreement. Recent negotiations regarding this bill have shown me just how committed the people of Emery County, Utah, are to the protection of this land. I am proud to offer with them and the Secretary of the Interior this bill to protect the San Rafael area. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) asked a question, and I would like to answer it in a different way. The little roads up to the north is actually a 2-lane highway.

Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman quoted someone as saying this bill is a way to get around wilderness. Let me clarify what I think the intent of that quote was. The issue is not to avoid or get around wilderness but to get beyond the debate which has stagnated, which is not moving forward, and which is leaving these lands subject to the degradation that I think we are all concerned about here. It is not a matter of getting around wilderness or around the gentleman's bill; it is a matter of getting around the problem of not improving the area.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite our colleagues to join with us and listen to the debate on what I think is a remarkable piece of legislation that will, I believe, significantly affect the course of public lands and legislation in America. I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands for his work on this bill. I encourage all of our colleagues to take a look at what we can actually do to solve the problems of use and abuse of our public lands.