Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would suspect that most Americans got their first taste of the West through the classic westerns of John Ford, and most of those films were made on public land. Mr. Ford paid a standard fee for the use of those lands, but for the past 50 years, for reasons that no one can really explain, the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service have been forbidden from collecting fees for commercial filming. The bill before us attempts to correct this inequity. H.R. 2993 directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop a uniform policy to collect fees for most commercial filming on lands administered by the Interior Department agencies. The bill directs that the Secretary require that these fees provide a fair return to the government, and that said fees shall not be less than the direct and indirect costs to the government for processing fee applications and for the use of the land and facilities. The bill also directs development of a fee schedule to be based on such factors as the number of people on the site, duration of their stay, surface disturbances and the use of special areas. The policy exempts from fees bona fide newsreel or news television productions, and most still photographers, save for those who use models and actors and sets and props, and those that would result in either damage to resources or a significant disruption to normal visitor uses. The language before us addresses concerns raised by the Justice Department and has been cleared with the minority. Finally, the bill directs the revenues from this policy to be used in accordance with the existing fee demo program. This bill is the product of a great deal of cooperation between both sides of the aisle on the Committee on Resources. In fact, I think it is an example of how most of the bills that we have in the Committee on Resources should come out. We worked very hard to make this bipartisan. We worked with the Department of the Interior and we worked with the motion picture industry. We tried to balance the film industry's need for certainty with the Interior's need for flexibility, and I think we have struck that balance. The film industry wants a certainty. They do not want an arbitrary kind of thing where they never know. And, in fact, if there is an arbitrary approach to it, more and more they will go offshore somewhere. They will go to Australia. They will go other places. There are other pretty places in the world they can go to film movies. They will go somewhere else to do it if they do not have a degree of certainty. I will not pretend this bill is a cure-all for all of our public land needs but it is a start. It will help. It is an equity thing. Even the film industry thinks that it should pay a reasonable fee for using the public lands. So this is one of those rare bills where I think everyone has the chance to come out a winner and, therefore, I urge its adoption. I do not believe there is any objection to this. I think we have worked out the kinks and I think it will work very well for us. Again, I would repeat, Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining on both sides?

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley).

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Earlier this year Bill Clinton issued two executive orders that mandate profound policy changes. Neither of these executive orders received public input and as a result, both orders contained policy decisions which, if left unchallenged, will have far-reaching implications. I oppose these orders and am offering an amendment that would prohibit the use of funds to implement, enforce or administer either of these orders. This President has issued 254 orders since he has been President of the United States. Other Presidents have overdone it, too. I think it is time Congress questioned his use of the executive order process. Tonight we are going after the misuse of two executive orders, but we will be back to go after others. The first executive order, issued on May 14, virtually ignores the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This executive order, titled Federalism, establishes broad and ambiguous circumstances in which the Federal Government could intervene in matters that have traditionally been left to State and local governments. This executive order, which reverses a 1987 executive order by President Ronald Reagan, is nothing more than a power grab from the States. Adding insult to injury, the administration never consulted the major organizations that represent State and local government officials and entities. The executive order greatly impacts those constituencies and yet they were never consulted or warned. The President says that he will suspend that executive order and rewrite it, but ``suspend'' is very different from ``revoke''. The President issued another executive order in May that would amend the Nation's civil rights laws as they pertain to Federal civilian employees. This executive order would require all Federal agencies to apply affirmative action policies on the basis of sexual orientation. This action amends President Richard Nixon's 1969 executive order by adding sexual orientation to the race, color, religion, sex, disability, age, and national origin as classes of Federal employees which are entitled to affirmative action programs. This amendment that I am offering tonight, in spite of all that was said on the previous amendment, is not about homosexuality. This amendment is not about discrimination, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) said in his comments on the previous amendment. We have Federal law which says you cannot discriminate. No one is encouraging discrimination here. It is about the misuse of the executive order process. The process is not designed to circumvent the Congress. This President has tried repeatedly to come to Congress and add a special set-aside or carve-out for sexual orientation in the civil rights laws. Congress has repeatedly said no. Now the President just goes around us. That is what this is about. Supporters of the executive order argue that the President's mandate only prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in the Federal civilian work force. I support efforts to ban discrimination, but this executive order does much more than simply address discrimination policies. President Nixon's executive order set forth the policy of government of the United States to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through, and listen, I quote, through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency. The Nixon order further provides that the head of each executive department and agency shall establish and maintain an affirmative program of equal employment opportunity for all civilian employees. Now, CRS says that that means affirmative action program. History shows us that this means quotas and set-asides to measure whether they have an affirmative program. Mr. Chairman, by amending the Nixon order, President Clinton's Executive Order does, in fact, expand our country's civil rights laws as they apply to Federal employees. This is a flagrant misapplication of Presidential power. The creation of Federal law or amending Federal law is the power properly invested in the legislative branch. Congress was ignored, and we have spoken many times about this effort. Furthermore, the administration's own leading civil rights official was not consulted. In testimony before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Bill Lann Lee admitted that neither he nor his staff had reviewed, approved or been consulted on the decision to add sexual orientation to the Federal affirmative action laws. Mr. Chairman, we need to stop this President, who is trying to legislate and govern by executive fiat. While my amendment alone will not overrule the President's orders, it will help restore the current Federal policies regarding Federalism and affirmative action and nondiscrimination. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, this week the National Wildlife Federation of Vienna, Virginia has petitioned to have the Black Tail Prairie Dog listed as an endangered species in 10 western states. Understand, this was not your run-of-the-mill petition but a request for an emergency listing due to the loss of habitat. While supporters of the petition admit that the prairie dog population is not critically low, the logic seems to be that we should protect them now because some day they might be endangered. Let me tell my colleagues about the prairie dog. They are everywhere in the West. If they want habitat, come west, we specialize in habitat for prairie dogs. With all the growth we have had along the front range of Colorado, they are still in abundance. If we fly over the West, we see the ground plowed as if it were plowed by a steel plow. But it is not. It is by prairie dogs. If my colleagues are familiar with the West, they know that the prairie dog is no more endangered than the fly or the gopher. Maybe we should arrange a trade: We will protect the prairie dog if the East Coast agrees to protect the gopher and the terribly endangered house fly. By the way, prairie dogs, not dogs. They are rats.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, as I understand clause 1 of rule XIV of the rules of the House, we are supposed to debate the subject of the amendment that is before us. It seems to me most of these gentlemen are debating the next amendment and not this amendment. I would like to ask the Chair if that is correct and if we should refrain from that.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HEFLEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. Is it true that we should stick to the subject of the amendment we are dealing with and not debate another amendment?

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this amendment that has to do with sexual orientation or carving out special privileges for any group in the workforce, and yet that is what the gentlewoman is debating. It would seem to me that under the rules cited earlier in Section 14, that that is not appropriate, and that the gentlewoman should wait and seek time under the following amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman is debating the next amendment, not this amendment. My parliamentary inquiry is, Mr. Chairman, that I believe the gentleman is debating the next amendment, not the federalism amendment. We have federalism in the next amendment, but he is debating a part of the amendment that will follow this one.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I support the basic purpose of this bill. I think it is a good bill. I think it is a needed bill. And I hate to inject any kind of a negative note into it, but I must rise today on behalf of the people around Denver International Airport. For several years now we have had a ban on the building of a sixth runway at DIA. This bill effectively lifts that ban. I have long felt that it is important to maintain the ban on the sixth runway until Denver and the FAA do all they can to relieve the noise problems of the people surrounding the airport. These are not people who built their homes next to an airport. These are people who chose to live in outlying counties, some of them as many as 25, 30 miles away, Douglas County being one of them that I represent, because these are relatively quiet, rural settings. For many of the residents that was the number one reason for living in these communities. But Denver decided they needed a new airport. They decided to put the airport far away from their own population. Now my constituents, and many others who never had a vote on whether to approve this new airport, are the ones paying the noise price that a big airport like this brings. When we went to Denver to ask them to help us solve this problem, they said, ``It is not our problem. We didn't consider this an Environmental Impact Statement. That is your problem. We are not going to worry about it.'' Because of the ban on the sixth runway, we were able to bring Denver to the table. It gave us leverage to bring Denver to the table to help try to solve the problem. In fact, the city of Denver jointly funded a noise study with the surrounding communities, and that study shows that changes could be made to the airport's flight paths to reduce the noise problems. That study would never have been done if we had not had a ban on the additional runway. This year should have been the culmination of our effort. With a compromise that we had worked out, and keeping the ban in place, we would have allowed Denver to proceed with the necessary environmental updates for the sixth runway so they would not have lost time. We would have kept Denver at the table, though, by having a ban on. With additional language instructing the FAA to address this problem, we would have had a real chance to solve the problem. Now, with the language in this bill, I am afraid it will be much more difficult to obtain relief for the people around DIA. I know that the chairmen, the main committee chairman and the subcommittee chairman, they do not understand, probably, how difficult it has been to work with Denver on this situation and to get them to the table and to make them look at the problems that they have created for the surrounding counties. We were able to do that, and I am very disappointed that the ban is lifted in this legislation. If you would have given us one more year, I think we would have gotten the problem solved and we would have all been supportive and there would not have been any problem. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and others for the efforts they have made to try to assist me in this matter. This being said, however, I cannot allow this measure to pass the House floor without voicing my opposition to the DIA provision lifting the ban.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am also a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and we have worked very, very hard to work with very few funds this year. If we were talking about the things that the gentleman from New York and the gentlewoman from Miami were talking about, if we were getting results, all right. Nobody shows us any results from these broadcasts. You air from 3 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock. I am convinced if they were not jammed, there would be very few people watching television at 3 o'clock in the morning. If you look at the cost, there is not any television station or a band of television stations that the cost is as much as it is for TV Marti. Somebody is making a lot of money, it is not very efficiently run, and there is, as I said earlier, not a corporation in the world that would invest money in as few listeners as TV Marti has. I made the point about the yoke of communism that the Cuban people bear, and that is a tragedy. But we have had a policy in Cuba ever since I have been involved in politics that has not been effective. TV Marti is not effective, and even the proponents of TV Marti can give you no numbers of how many people that TV Marti is reaching and what the cost per listener is that it costs the taxpayers of this country. I yield to nobody in my fight to release people from the yoke of communism and for defense of this great country, but these arguments are pretty ludicrous when you talk about that this is our last stand to try to do away with Castro, and that if TV Marti is gone, we have lost the whole battle and we do not have the commitment to the Cuban people. To me, that is totally ludicrous, and I would urge that Members vote for the Skaggs amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, imagine you are falsely accused of crimes. You know that you are innocent, but the people who know the truth simply are not talking. People who could prove you are innocent, it turns out, are the Secret Service personnel who are constantly by your side and that could testify that all of the scurrilous accusations are, in fact, untrue. So your task is to convince everyone you know to come forward, to prove your innocence, and to clear your name. Let us think about this for a minute. If a person is falsely accused of wrongdoing, clearly what must be done is to demand the people who know the truth to come forward and tell the whole world what they know. On the other hand, someone who is guilty of wrongdoing acts in a strikingly different manner. In such a case, all manner of excuse is given to prevent people from coming forward to tell what they know. You do not have to be a Perry Mason fan to know the difference between a behavior of a falsely accused person and one that is guilty.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me very quickly say in closing in response to the concern of the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), it is my understanding that we can rent government cars, we can lease government cars as Members of Congress for official business. I did that at one time. I have not done it in years. At one time I did that. It was also my understanding when I did that that I could not go to Salida, Colorado, and hold town meetings in the morning in that government car, and then in the evening hold a fund-raiser for my campaign. I am still in the government car, and I could not reimburse the government for the percentage of time for that government car. I do not know whether that rule has changed or not. But if you cannot do that with a government car, but you can do it with Air Force One, I think the double standard that you keep referring to here is in application today. I think this would help in that double standard. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.