Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a very valued member of our subcommittee and a person who has had great experience in these areas.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the Hansen amendment. I want to give my colleagues a sense of how the administration feels about the subcommittee action and why they believe that it is so dangerous. ``Although not completely clear on the face of the rider, its prohibition on managing national monuments as national monuments during FY 2001 is intended to effectively repeal the President's proclamations made since the end of FY 1999.'' Very cleverly written language, by the way. ``This intent is made clear in the Committee report, which calls on the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to continue previous management scenarios until such time as Congress ratifies the Monument declaration. As described in the report, then, the amendment would repeal the effect of recent monument proclamations until Congress ratifies them, thus effectively nullifying the President's exercise of the authority Congress gave him in the Antiquities Act. ``The Antiquities Act has been one of the Nation's most effective protection tools, implemented by both Republican and Democratic administrations since 1906. The proposed amendment, a rider to an appropriations bill, would essentially neuter the Antiquities Act by denying the responsible Federal agencies the ability to enforce key elements of the monument proclamations made since 1999. In the Antiquities Act, Congress vested in the President the ability to act quickly to protect portions of the existing Federal estate. In this appropriations provision, added without the congressional consideration that would normally accompany the substantive modification of an authorizing statute, the subcommittee is attempting to undo much of that authority for areas designated since 1999. The amendment would effectively strip the President of his ability to protect objects of historic and scientific interest for their unique value and for the enjoyment of the American people. ``A related effect of the House amendment would be to expose national monuments designated since 1999 to abuse and resource degradation, with potentially devastating results. Management as national monuments is prohibited by the rider language, so that any action constrained or described in a monument proclamation would be disallowed if affecting it required an expenditure of funds appropriated by the FY 2001 interior bill. This suggests one of two outcomes, both unfortunate for the American people. Either the Federal agencies, unable to enforce an otherwise valid Presidential proclamation, would be forced simply to close those lands to any form of public use; or the Federal agencies, denied funding to manage these monuments, would have to abandon them to vandals, invasive species, uncontrolled resource exploitation and other harm, until Congress restored the funding needed to manage them. ``For example, the rider would prevent the BLM from stopping mining activities in these monuments on claims located after the proclamation had withdrawn the area from operation under the Mining Law. The language would also prevent the responsible agencies from managing these lands for livestock grazing, even when grazing is a use recognized in the proclamation, because such uses cannot be managed without funding. ``A similar problem arises from a lack of funding to enforce restrictions on highway vehicle use. The proclamation that established the Grand Canyon-Parashant in Arizona, for instance, provides specifically that the BLM shall continue to issue and administer grazing leases within the portion of the monument within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area consistent with the Lake Mead National Recreation Area authorizing legislation. ``And for the purpose of protecting the objects identified above, all motorized and mechanized vehicle use off road will be prohibited, except for emergency and authorized administrative purposes. ``The House amendment makes it impossible to implement these portions of a monument proclamation that depend on funding. Thus, enactment of the rider could force BLM to remove livestock from the Grand Canyon- Parashant, and close the area to vehicle use of any sort. Alternatively, BLM would be forced to walk away from this land all together, and abandon the enforcement of OHV restrictions, the monitoring of grazing allotments, and the review and renewal of grazing permits.'' So I think this amendment is wrong. I do not think we properly considered it in our committee. I think the gentleman from Utah, and others who are against the Antiquities Act, should deal with it in the authorizing committees and not here as an appropriation rider. That is why I so strongly object to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we are not instantly creating wilderness. So the gentleman is a moderate, a centrist, one of the most respected Members of this House. I think this language goes way too far. I think it will be a bad thing for, not only this President, who a lot of the people in this Chamber do not seem to like, but for the future President who may want to protect an important monument for this country.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the other point I want to make is he does not just go out and do this on any land. It has to be land that has previously been under Federal management. In most cases, they are still hunting and hiking and canoeing and other things that can be done on this land.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) on his statement and make this point: the effect statement of the Department of Interior basically says that, if this language passes, that we have basically neutered or gutted the Antiquities Act. It makes it impossible for the President to protect these important lands.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), who has been a strong protector of the environment. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my friend from Washington, we have had a very spirited debate here today. We have discussed this issue. The administration feels very strongly that further delay of this draft environmental impact statement is counterproductive, because what we are trying to do is to protect this habitat and make sure that we restore these salmon runs, and also to make sure there is some commodity production on the lands that the gentleman is concerned about. What the gentleman is opening himself up to by further delaying a rational answer, a scientifically credible, legally defensible answer, is the same kind of injunction that we got on the West side which led to a total halt in all timber harvesting. So it is a high-risk strategy that I think will fail. I must say also to my colleagues, who say do not breach the dams in the Snake River, if you are not going to do that, and I agree with you on that issue, but if you are not going to do that, then you have got to do something to protect this other habitat, so that we can restore these fish runs, so we can restore the bull trout, restore the salmon runs on the Snake River. Yes, they may be healthy on the Columbia River, but we have endangered listings on the Snake River. One cannot stop everything and say you are addressing the problem. What government is about is coming forward with leadership, coming forward with proposals, working these things out. Our State had the forest and fish plan, we have had habitats conservation plans, where good people get together and work these things out. I say to the gentleman, it is time to stop blocking this ICBEMP proposal, because you are undermining our ability to solve these environmental problems.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), for a comment on the legal issue.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding to me. I appreciate that. If the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) were serious about the amendment, he would have an offset. Everybody here had to have an offset today. We offered offsets. There is no offset here. He is taking our offset, the money that we voted on, and using it for this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. But this was not so tactical, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman could ask the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) if he would, by unanimous consent, amend his amendment to cover both these issues, which would cover the intent of that; and the gentleman from Washington could amend his amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that last year we worked with the gentleman and we were able to get a Northwest Forest Pass enacted so that we could cut down on the duplicity, and I think it has made some progress. But we are glad to work with the gentleman from Oregon again this year and we would hope that we could have a quick vote on this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, What is the agreement again?

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we will agree to that, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and I will control 9 minutes.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who is an expert on these matters.