Jay Inslee

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in part ``no amendment to a general appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law.'' Unfortunately, the amendment of the Chairman, who I have respect for, does give affirmative direction. In effect it imposes additional duties and it does modify existing powers and duties. I have concerns about the substance of the bill in waiving competitive bidding, but, more importantly I ask the chair to rule on my point of order.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strike section 116, which has a considerable anti-environmental impact both because of the way it was drawn and because of existing law, because basically the existing section of the bill, if allowed to stand, would essentially lock in the livestock levels and practices, on various areas that are leased, for grazing after the permit expires, after the lease has expired and after BLM and other agencies have made good faith attempts to improve the environmental activities in the grazing. For instance, when a lease expires now, our Federal Government is charged with the responsibility of making sure that before there is a renewal that there is not overgrazing that occurs in the land or there is not erosion that occurs on the land. Under existing law and for the last probably 100 years, they had the right to do that, not subject to the unilateral decision-making by the permittee. Unfortunately, the way this language is drafted in the existing proposed bill, it would allow the permittee to unilaterally, in a sense, insist on the continuation of the number of animals on the unit, of the uses and the practices on the unit, even to the extent one can have environmental damage. The way that that is drafted, it essentially would turn the lease on its head, because for decades in this country, when the permit expired, the permit expired. Essentially, in a Supreme Court decision that took place very recently, just in May of this year, called Public Lands Council versus Babbitt, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the proposition again that permittees do not have a right title in interest of land that is constitutionally protected after the expiration of the lease or permit. Unfortunately, the way that this action is drafted, it would allow, and I want to repeat that not all folks who are grazing are bad stewards in the land. Many of them are doing a tremendous job as stewards of the land. But there are some that, frankly, have loads of grazing that are causing damage to the land in the environmental aspect that we want to protect. It would allow those permitees to essentially unilaterally tell the BLM or the Forest Service that, No, no, I do not agree. Your process is not completed. I do not believe your process was adequate; therefore, I am going to appeal your process to another level or to a Federal court or to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court. While that was going on, Uncle Sam and the taxpayers would be required to be submitted to whatever the permitee had going on in the land in the first 10 years of the lease. I think that really is not consistent with our idea that, when the permit expires, Uncle Sam ought to have the ability to negotiate in good faith with the permitee about what provisions occur. Now, I am not alone in being concerned about the environmental aspects of this. Our amendment is supported by the League of Conservation Voters and Trout Unlimited, U.S. PIRG, the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, and the Wilderness Society. The reason, Mr. Chairman, that those groups are concerned about this is that they believe it could be a fairly significant opening up and restriction of our agency's ability to fulfill their environmental mandate. I also wanted to point out, and I presume the drafters of the language had some concern, that there would be some wholesale refusal or failure to simply reprocess these permits. But I have done some looking into it; and I found that, under existing loads, the agency ought to be able to handle these permits. In the next year, about 1,600 permits will expire. They will have to do about 170 for previous years for under 2,000 permits. Last year, the agencies processed 3,847 permits. So basically the agencies are capable of doing this. Our concern is that if we pass this language the way it was written, it will allow some permitees, some, not all, but some to essentially prevent BLM from enforcing environmental laws by essentially saying, even though my permit is expired, I am going to force Uncle Sam to except however many animals I have had, and that we are going to keep those animals on even if my permit is expired as long as I keep this tied up in the courts. I believe that is inconsistent with long-term practices and environmental law. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I think we have a significant drafting issue that I very much would encourage the Chair to look at because I have looked at it very carefully. There is quite a number of folks that have looked at it. I am very clear that the way the language is drafted at this time, it would allow the permittee to insist in the continuation of the lease for as long as this process in appeal period is involved. If that was the intention of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) to make this permissive or discretionary with the Bureau rather than mandatory to the permittee, I really believe we need some changes in the drafting. If that is the intention, I would perhaps encourage us to defer this for a few minutes so we could have that discussion. I really believe we need some drafting changes here.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, with the Chair's permission, if we can find a parliamentary way to do this, table this for at least a few minutes while we have discussions in that regard, if the Chair would allow in that regard.

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

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I will always yield to anyone who has comments of that nature. I thank the gentleman so much. That is high praise from the source. Mr. Speaker, it is a good day for the House.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a note of personal satisfaction that the House has been able to succeed in fashioning a true bipartisan bill. I think that is largely due to the efforts of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley). Their years in service and experience have really paid off here in leading this House to be able to find this consensus. Sometimes new Members, like myself, need to recognize the ability for experience to pay off here; and that has happened in this case. Mr. Speaker, this is a great bill because, simply, it will allow business to move at the speed of light rather than the speed of paper. I think in the halls of Congress we have got to recognize that there is incredible genius out there every minute of every hour creating new products, new consumer benefits. And we in the House have to make sure that we help them do that; we remove barriers that are standing in their way. I represent an extremely high-tech district, Redmond, Washington, north of Seattle, where every day there are geniuses coming up with new technologies. And this is really a single statement, I think, that the House is going to move ahead and recognize a new fact. And that new fact is this: there are no just high-tech issues anymore. Everything is high tech. This is a statement that the House understands that. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we have achieved a market success in making sure that consumer rights are protected when this new technology is used. Several of us had an amendment when the bill was in the House that made sure that all consumer protections in the country, all the substantive notices and consumer protections, in fact those protections of consumers will remain in under this new law. In addition, it will make sure that only when consumers want to use electronic measures will they be used. So it is a great day.

Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure there is no confusion because my understanding is the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) added certain lands south of this particular county. However, it did not add areas that were subject to wilderness potential study and certainly which we believe is within this swell area in Sevier County. I am speaking specifically of the Limestone Cliffs area. Now, I just want to make sure that we understand the amendment of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Boehlert). This is our understanding on this side. I just ask the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) to clarify that.

Mr. INSLEE. If I may be heard in answer to that question, Mr. Chairman, there are two artificial human lines that prevent protection of this resource and others like it. One is a county line, a human- drawn boundary; and the second is some small roads up farther north. Both of these are human-drawn boundaries. The point we are making with our amendment is that those political decisions, that political history, should not be respected as much as the Creator's handiwork. And by the way, if there is any question about the Swell, I advise my colleagues that there are some great geological texts that clearly define this area and others as within the San Rafael Swell. And I want to address this Muddy Creek, if I can, because I know it is a favorite of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). Without the Inslee amendment, we do not, repeat, we do not protect the entire watershed of Muddy Creek. The one thing I know about arteries in our body is if we cut it off in one place it does not make it any good if we protect the other 98 percent. We do not protect a significant percentage of the Muddy Creek watershed. And if we had gone back and redrawn the history of the West, we certainly would have protected watersheds rather than north-south lines and meridians. We would have protected watersheds. Now is the chance, today, for the U.S. Congress to start a new direction when we decide how we protect the West. Today we can decide to protect watersheds rather than historical documents that some surveyor punched a straight line through Utah on. And I think that is an advance for the U.S. Congress, and I hope that we will make it.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Many of my colleagues have graciously invited me and others to come see this incredible property, and we want to come. This is just a picture of one area. This is a picture of the Jones Bench, which is an area that is not protected under the existing proposal but would be evaluated and protected under the Inslee amendment. Let me say sincerely and graciously that the reason for this amendment is to make sure that Jones Bench is there in its current position by the time I get there. And this amendment would simply say we are going to honor the gentleman's invitation, but we would like him to keep the place the way it is before we get there to evaluate the inclusion of this for wilderness status. Let me make sure people understand this, too, because perhaps there is some confusion. The area of Jones Bench is in Sevier County, not Emery County. It is in Sevier County. And because it is in Sevier County, and because it is on the wrong side of another little road somebody put in somewhere, by man not the Creator, we in the existing proposal would not protect it. And I think the proposition we are testing in Congress today is how are we going to decide what is worthy of protection. Are we going to decide just based on county lines and where man created roads, or are we going to give respect to the Creator and decide it where the Creator put the red rock? I stand here to say we ought to respect the Creator's handiwork and draw these boundary lines on the basis of where the Creator put these ecosystems and this red rock. If we do not do this, my colleagues, I will not be able, because of the pressure down in this neck of the woods is tremendous in these areas, I believe we may not be able to honor the gentleman's invitation if we do not include this amendment. And I respectfully urge my colleagues to join us in adding about 14 percent to this amendment to include the Creator's handiwork.

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

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

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

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's correction. We appreciate that. We also appreciate the interest of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) in this bill and his sincere effort to move forward in this regard, as well as the interest of the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Chairman, our amendment is necessitated by the simple fact that the bill as currently written falls considerably short of protecting the San Rafael Swell in its entirety. What our amendment would do, which is widely supported by those who are interested in the Red Rock area of this wonderful State, would essentially add about 14 percent of the San Rafael Swell that is not currently protected by the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I think any of us who are familiar with this area would conclude that these hundreds of thousands of acres which we have not proposed to be protected in this bill need to be protected both because of their scenic splendor, and because of their virtue of silence and their ecosystem protection for various endangered and threatened species who live in the area. Let me address those issues if I may, Mr. Chairman. Basically, what happened to create the imperfection in this bill as it currently is situated is that the drafters, in attempting in good faith to obtain consensus, have drawn a boundary of the San Rafael Swell created by man with political boundaries and sometimes by small roads, rather than on the Creator's boundaries, the way the Creator made this land and these incredible rock formations. In that regard, boundaries as currently drawn would cut off a significant portion of the area which is so scenic and so important to the ecosystem in this area. Those include a number, and I want to talk about some of those areas because they are incredibly scenic. Those are the Eagle Canyon area, which is perhaps closest to the populated area in Utah; the Rock Canyon area; the Molen Reef area; the Limestone Cliffs area. Let me address why some of these areas are important. Let me address this Limestone Cliffs area. This is an area which is essentially a conduit for elk, deer, a number of wonderful critters when they go between the lower elevations and the higher elevations. If we do not protect these areas, we will not have done justice to the basic thrust of this bill. There is an area here too that I just cannot fail to mention. There is an area that would be protected under our amendment called the Mussentuchit Badlands, and I think that is the proper language that we ought to think about it. Because ``mustn't touch it'' should be the approach that this Congress takes to not allow development or spoiling of that area. It is an incredibly beautiful area. Those who have been there know, this is sedimentary rock, this Red Rock Canyon area. In this Mussentuchit Badlands, there are fins, vertical layers of igneous rock that come shooting up out of this sedimentary rock that are really spectacular. Why is that not protected in the bill? Why did the drafters not include Mussentuchit Badlands? The reason is sort of an artifact of political boundaries. Frankly, if we are going to protect this area, we have got to protect it the way the Creator made it, not due to political boundaries. The Limestone Cliffs area I addressed happened to be west of a boundary line of a particular county. It is in Sevier County. Now, why we should exclude an area simply because it is over a county line? I do not think that comports with the basic thrust of this bill, which is to protect wild areas, to protect scenic areas, and to protect these ecosystems. I will tell my colleagues, the deer and the other animals who reside in this area do not respect these county lines. When we develop a boundary for a conservation area, we should not draw these boundaries the way man has on the map but the way they are created and laid out on the ground. Let me address, if I can, a basic, perhaps, argument here today between some who suggest that, I guess, if one does not live in Utah, one does not have enough sensitivity or care or knowledge of this land. I do not purport to have the knowledge of the representatives of Utah about this land. But what I would say is, when it comes to Federal land, when the good people of Utah come to Mt. Rainier in Washington, my home State, they take back a piece of Mt. Rainier back to Utah. It is something they never forget. It is the same of the people I represent. When my software engineers go down and hike the Red Rock Canyons, they take a piece of Utah back with them that is right here as much as in Utah. We will respect our constituents nationwide if we adopt this amendment and fully protect this incredible area.

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

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

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am greatly disappointed that our friends across the aisle are not joining Senator John McCain, who has shown great leadership in an attempt to close this loophole, and are not joining us on this side of the aisle who want to close this loophole. Now here is why we should do this together: it is a fundamental tenet of Americans' values that we like a fair fight. Americans like a fair fight, and these 527 organizations are nothing more than secret assassins. They are secret character assassins, and they assassinate people on both sides of the aisle on a bipartisan basis. With all due respect to the last speaker, we do not need any experts from the Department of Treasury to tell us this. Look at 527. I have it right here, that defines these terms. It says, the term exempt function means the function of influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election or appointment of any individual for these offices. These are born and bred to try to assassinate candidates, and yet the public does not know who is doing the assassination. We have a bipartisan interest in a fair fight. We ought to have a bipartisan effort. The other side ought to join us in closing this loophole. Americans are entitled to know where this money is coming from for these back-handed secret assassinations.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the outstanding achievement of Kay McManus, one of the many constituents who distinguishes my Congressional District. Kay works tirelessly to ensure that the children in our schools receive the nutrition they need to pay attention in class, participate in after school activities and do all of the things that young adults need to do to grow into thoughtful adults. We know that when a child receives a good breakfast he or she performs at a higher level. Hungry children have more respiratory illnesses and are absent from school more often than children who are well fed. Many children receive two out of their three meals at school--and it is critical that nutritional choices are available to them. Kay's work is making that possible. The American School Food Service Association recently recognized Kay's hard work by naming her the ``Outstanding Director of the Year.'' This is the first time that this award has ever been given. It will be bestowed annually on a Food Service director whose work serves as a model for Food Service programs across the country. Future recipients of this award have a tough act to follow. I am proud to represent a district that has so many dedicated, committed individuals. Kay, thank you for making America a better place.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, none of us have rose-colored glasses when it comes to China, but we have to ask this question: What is the more powerful force for breaking the strangle cord of the Chinese Government. Twenty million Chinese armed with cell phones and Internet access and independent businesses or 435 members of the House giving sometimes eloquent speeches about China. Chinese freedom will advance when the Chinese have an independent basis to break the strangle cord of the Chinese Government, and this agreement will advance that cause. Three days ago, aerospace machinists, Local 751, representing 44,000 aerospace workers in the Puget Sound area endorse this treaty. They did this for this reason, they recognize the real contest here is this, who will have the trade benefits of this agreements, the workers in Toulouse, France or the workers in Seattle, Washington. I am voting for the workers in Seattle, Washington, to make sure those workers have the benefit of this agreement; those workers get those trade benefits. I am supporting those workers in this rule.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, colleagues last June in Bellingham, Washington, an oil and gas pipeline exploded and the ensuing fireball killed three young men; that pipeline company now seeks to reopen that pipeline. It is a 16-inch pipeline that runs right through the heart of East King County in my district without properly testing this line. They seek to reopen this line which suffered not only this failure that killed three people, but suffered a subsequent failure disclosed under water pressure testing. This company seeks to reopen this line without doing that same water pressure testing and exposing my constituents to that risk; that is wrong. This amendment would simply require that company to do what it ought to do as a good neighbor and hydrostatically test this line, a common sense, well-recognized test that will prevent a recurrence of the type of tragedy that we experienced. Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of work to do nationally on our oil and gas pipeline safety, and I am very hopeful that the appropriate committees will have hearings on this subject. I have a bill. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf) has a bill. We have worked together; we hope that we can nationally revise our oil and gas line pipeline safety standards. I have to tell my colleagues that those standards are the consistency of Swiss cheese right now, and we need to do it nationally, but a start is to do it in my district. This amendment would take care of that issue. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. T4Smith) who has been joining me in this effort.

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