Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to offer this amendment because I believe that the General Investigations Account is overfunded. In fact, I believe the entire Corps budget is way underfunded when we look at the real infrastructure needs of the United States. I appreciate the fact that the committee and the House have found $288 million more than the President proposed, but it is still $156 million less than last year, and all across the country we have locks and dams and jetties failing. In particular, in my own district we have a dam at Fern Ridge which is more than 50 years old which is on the verge of catastrophic failure. The Corps has lowered the level of water behind the dam. They say that at any moment they may have to dewater the reservoir. And when the reservoir is dewatered, we lose both the extraordinary recreation benefits of one of the most heavily recreated lakes in Oregon, the revenues that flow from that recreation, but we also lose the flood control. And just a few years ago this dam was vital when we had a wet winter, and they are now predicting that we again are going to have a wet winter. So if the dam just fails a little bit more, we are going to lose all the flood control capability and all of the recreational attributes, and the Corps of my region says they just will not have the money until the year 2006 to fix this dam. That is not acceptable. We cannot have dams that are failing and say, come back in 3 years and, by the way, if they have a 100-year flood in the interim, they are out of luck. We will have hundreds of millions of downstream damage, and I guess then Federal flood insurance will pay for it out of a different pocket than the pocket out of which we are appropriating this bill. So my intention in offering this amendment is not to criticize the committee or the Corps or any of these budgets, but to raise the point that the O&M Account, which goes to issues like the failing Fern Ridge Dam, goes to the dredging of the small ports along the southern Oregon coast, is woefully underfunded. I also understand that a point of order may lie against this amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think the chairman has, with his perfecting amendment, admitted that the administration had perhaps gone a road too far with their proposal, and what the chairman proposes would protect some of the most precious of our public lands against obscure, specious claims of right- of-way access. Unfortunately, the chairman's amendment does not, in my opinion, go quite far enough. Among the things that the chairman excludes from protection are private lands. And I would refer to the Salt Lake Tribune, on Saturday, June 21, 2003, which is an article about a couple, Jana and Ron Smith who, despite having researched and properly purchased their property, found that when they returned at one point from a vacation, that the local district attorney and the road crews had cut a chain, removed a gate, pulled down the private property signs, and provided full access to their very obscure and remote property which they had bought for those values. Unfortunately, they ultimately had to resort to the courts and the courts upheld their rights to the private property. But if this underlying legislation, even with the chairman's amendment, remains in the bill authorizing the actions by the administration, it would color the claims of Jana and Ron Smith and others and prejudice them and, minimally, require people with private property to have to hire expensive attorneys to defend their rights to their own property but, in all probability, perhaps jeopardize their claims to defend their property. It not only excludes private property, and I am surprised that the majority party would not have included private property in this amendment, and perhaps the gentleman will want to amend his amendment by unanimous consent to include private lands. Military lands are not included, so we may, again, find obscure or potentially specious claims to military lands and reservations which are quite extensive in the western United States. Again, I am surprised that the majority party would not be sensitive to the concerns of the military about allowing unbridled access across their reservations. It also would exclude areas of critical environmental concern, wild and scenic rivers, national trails, national conservation areas, and other public lands. So I think what the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) tried to do, which was not allowed, which would have opened this process to begin those most legitimate and obvious claims, let us grant those. Yes, let us grant them. Let us not have them have to go to court and fight for them, and then let us begin to parse through this very difficult problem. But let us not open the door to jeopardizing people's private property rights, or the rights of the military to protect Federal property, and wild and scenic rivers, national trails, and others.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would be happy if the chairman wishes to amend by unanimous consent his protections to extend them to private lands, hopefully even military lands and some of these other things, but at least to private lands because it is a particular concern, to do that. That would be acceptable to me.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but would we not at this point, and I am not a lawyer, so I may be disadvantaged in this group because of that, but would we not want to then legislate that? Would we not want to be assured? I do not want to depend upon a future extension of an MOU, memorandum of understanding for those who are listening and do not understand, with this administration for the protection of mines in other States.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that point. Unfortunately, Utah is only one State in the western United States that would be subject to these proposals. There are a number of other States. There is not, to the best of my knowledge, a memorandum of understanding with Oregon, Washington, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, California, or other areas. And I think that we should not depend upon MOUs, but we should legislate in these areas.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who preceded me talked about the threats to the population if we do not have this practice. It has not happened in my State. We banned this practice. Real sportsmen do not bait bears. In Oregon, what has happened is actually three times as many people have bought hunting licenses to hunt bears. So, actually, the bear harvest, if Members want to call it that, is up in Oregon because real hunters are out there, not the guys sitting around waiting for the bears to come and feast on what they are being baited with.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the key points here are, and a number have been made by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for whom I have great respect, that the Park Service needs this money. They do, and that is why I have offered this amendment. It is to make certain that we cannot fail in our duty to the Park Service. This would extend 2 years further, which means a grand total of 38 months for the Park Service before we would have to pass an authorization; and surely the United States Congress in 38 months can come up with a permanent authorization for the Park Service. But what I fear is, and we have heard this before on the floor, I heard 5 years ago from a former chairman of the authorizing committee that he would never, ever support further extension without proper authorization. The gentleman is now retired, but we did reauthorize this program with a rider in an appropriations bill without going through the authorizing process. I am pleased the current chairmen of the full committee and the subcommittee are working on legislation, but I fear this takes the pressure off, that if we pass now an extension for another 2 years from October 1 of 2004 for the United States Forest Service, we will not get to cleaning up that program and making the changes that need to be made. I am surprised anyone would want to support a tax where 50 percent of the tax is spent on overhead, and that is what is happening with the Forest Service. And the other 50 percent we do not really know where that money is going. There is no tracking. There is nothing to show that is going to meet inventoried unmet needs or enhancement needs for the recreational experience of the people who are paying this tax. And it is, in fact, a tax. Take the town of Oak Ridge in my district, totally surrounded by the national forests. If they go out to recreate with their families, just to drive up the nearest roads to park and walk over and fish, it is a paved maintained road, they are going to have to pay $35 to do that. Now that is not right. It is a low-income community, and it is just not right. They are surrounded by national forests. They don't have any options. They have to pay this tax. Then, to add insult to injury, half of the tax they are paying is going to bureaucratic overhead; and they do not know where the other half is going because the Forest Service is not tracking it. We have no system. I am certain the authorizing committee can rectify those matters, hopefully even eliminating a requirement of a tax on people who want to go to undeveloped recreation. I have no problem with charging this. It would obviously allow the continued charges at parks, but I do not have a problem for continuing to charge for developed campsites, boat ramps, special use areas, and other things on Forest Service and BLM lands. I would urge my colleagues to support this because I fear if we once again, through this process, extend this for 38 months into the future for the Forest Service, we will never get to correcting this program.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley). (Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, could I get the division of the time that is left?

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would extend the authorization for the Park Service which, I think, most Members of this body support, particularly given the backlog we have heard about and the underfunding to levy these fees under what has been commonly called the Rec Fee Demo Program. However, it would not prematurely extend the authority to the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to extend these fees. These fees, under current law for the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, are authorized by prior appropriation, not through the authorizing committee, through October 1 of next year. The authorizing committee has actually been processing, beginning work on an authorization bill, which will be the first time since 1996 that these were properly authorized for the Forest Service and the BLM. If this amendment would pass, that committee would have ample time to properly authorize the program before the expiration a year from next October. So I think that this would address the concerns of many Members of the House who are split between those who feel very strongly we need these funds for the Park Service, and those of us who feel very strongly that levying these fees indiscriminately across the Forest Service and the BLM, to nondeveloped areas in particular, is of great concern. Basically, if you want to drive your car around a park and go hunting or go fishing or just walk with the kids or the dog, you have to buy a pass for nondeveloped sites, and a lot of us have strong concerns about that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I share a lot of the sentiments expressed by the chairman. But I would point out that both of these programs, both the Forest Service and the Park Service are authorized by the appropriators through October 1 of next year, which would give our committee more than ample time to authorize before the expiration. Just to have a degree of certainty because people are so concerned about the parks, I said, well, the parks would still fall under the 2-year extension here. But the Forest Service, I just want to make sure that we get it done and the other body does not somehow mess us up on this.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, just to respond to the esteemed chairman. I just want this to be conducted factually. The total amount of funds, including the Park Service, may be the number the gentleman quoted, but the actual amount of money in the last year that we have figures for for the Forest Service was $36 million, not $191 million, and only $13 million of that was applied somewhere, somehow on the ground. This program is, in fact, eating up more than half of its costs in overhead. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I was sitting in my office watching this debate. I participated earlier, and I was going to participate later, and I was not going to participate on this amendment until I was insulted and the memories of young people from my district were insulted by the gentleman from Minnesota. To try and purport that the National Forest Management Act had anything to do with the death of those kids is outrageous. Mr. Chairman, where is the money for the firefighting? The other side has not adequately funded it. Where is the money for the fuels reduction? It is not in the budget. The other side has passed a so- called healthy forest bill that does not have one penny, not one red cent in it for fuels reduction. The other side wants to pretend this stuff can be done on the cheap so they can give money in tax cuts to the wealthy people. Those kids died protecting their property. Mr. Chairman, it does not have to do with the National Forest Management Act, and Members know. Put up the money to fight the fires. Put up the money to do the fuels reduction and stop screwing around with the public process. That is what is being done here. The target here is not to get rid of the brush. We have a 6 billion board foot backlog of commercial thinning in the Pacific Northwest that the Forest Service does not have the money to fund; 6 billion board feet. That could put one heck of a lot of people to work for one heck of a long time. But the other side will not fund it because what is the real target here, the target here is the little bit of the remaining old growth. That is why they want to change the rules. Not to get the brush or fuels reduction or deal with the 6 billion board foot backlog of thinning but to go into these forests and cut the last remaining valuable old growth trees, the only trees that happen to be fire resistant, the only trees that should be left behind when foresters go through and remove the rest of the junk from 100 years of forest mismanagement. And, yes, Democrat and Republican administrations alike are responsible for forest mismanagement. But to perpetuate it now and to perpetuate it under a myth that somehow it will not cost a penny to undo 100 years of mismanagement, that somehow you are going to go in and do the thinning, that somehow you are going to go in and do the brush removal and the fuels reduction and it will not cost a cent, the only way to do that is to take out the most valuable trees at the same time, which means you do not leave what every credible fire ecologist and scientist says needs to be left in fire-prone forests and which would take us back to presettlement conditions and premismanagement conditions, the old growth. Do not do this by disrespecting the young people from my district and other people in the West who died fighting these fires.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I would like to speak in opposition to the rule because the rule would violate the rules of the House. It would allow, for the fourth time, the authorization of a tax on average Americans who choose to recreate on our Federal lands. Now, I have no problem with charging for use of developed sites, I have no problem with special use areas, and certainly no problem for the parks. We have already heard how the parks are underfunded. But to charge Americans who live in remote rural communities in my district and elsewhere throughout the West in the United States to drive and park their car for dispersed recreation in an undeveloped area, whether it is hunting or fishing or just taking the grandkids for a walk, as a grandma in Oak Ridge might do, they have to pay a large annual fee, $35, to drive out of this poor community which is completely surrounded by national forestlands. They have to pay that fee. Yet the authorizing committee in the House, the committee which should authorize such a tax, because there is a tax, and this is the party that does not want new taxes, and this would be a new tax because it is going to extend it without an authorization, without hearings, without any appropriate action for another 2 years in this bill, and that violates the rules of the House. But that is protected under this rule from my raising a point of order against it. This is not the proper way to move forward on this issue. There is a legislation introduced by Senator Thomas of Wyoming that would make this program permanent for the parks, and I would be happy to support that, and the House would. We have Members of the majority party here who are working on legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), that would change the program a little bit, because they feel parts of it are inappropriate and are restricting the public's right to access their lands without charge in areas where there is no discernible investment or need for such a barrier charge. And the program itself is problematic. For the $36 million that were raised by the Forest Service, $13 million of it got to the ground. So it is not only an oppressive tax on average Americans, it is an unbelievably inefficient tax when you begin to look at the collection costs and all the other problems that arise from this particular program. I mean, that is about a one-third efficiency rate. I do not think many of us would support any other tax that would only provide about a third of the revenues which it assesses against people to the purpose which it purports to fulfill. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule for this reason and for others articulated by my friend and colleague from Washington State so that we can more fairly debate this bill and more fairly and properly address issues such as this rec fee demo tax on Americans.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just urge that my colleagues strongly stand behind the work of the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the House and support this motion to instruct and stand firm against the Senate so that we can have the best bill possible.