Butch Otter

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, since 1970, two federal agencies have had jurisdiction over implementation and enforcement of the Endangered Species nationwide--the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the U.S. Department of Commerce. Before 1970, NMFS' programs were implemented by USFWS. This changed when President Nixon signed a law creating it 3 years before the enactment of the Endangered Species Act. If President Nixon knew how ESA and NMFS would look today--30 years later--he probably would have second thoughts. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has jurisdiction of over 1,800 species of plants, mammals, birds, and fish, and an annual ESA budget of $112 million. NMFS--with responsibility for just 42 listed species of marine mammals and fish--has an annual ESA budget nearly as high as USFWS--$105 million. Many of NMFS' ``species'' include ``evolutionary significant unit'' designations that NMFS created without Congressional authorization--an issue that is now pending in federal district court. Mr. Speaker, the goals and activities of these two agencies have become blurred. For example, both NMFS and USFWS have undertaken the listing and recovery of Atlantic salmon, the Gulf sturgeon, and four species of sea turtles. In the Pacific Northwest, the USFWS manages freshwater bull trout and hatchery salmon, while NMFS has devoted billions of dollars to regulate and enforce the recovery of ``wild'' salmon and steelhead in the same watersheds. NMFS allows the commercial and tribal harvest of thousands of salmon that it acknowledges are endangered. NMFS' interpretation of ESA has caused hundreds of activities--including those having minimal impact-- or those that actually aid--the recovery of species to be held up for months or years. Instead of becoming more efficient, NMFS' response is to request more federal money and expand their regulatory activities while failing to identify goals of how many species of fish it needs to recover. All species--fish and humans--deserve better from the federal government. That is why today I and my friend and colleague from Idaho, Congressman Mike Simpson, together will introduce the ``Endangered Species Consolidation Act''. This measure will ensure that ESA activities regarding fish that spawn in fresh or estuarine waters and migrate to ocean waters--and vice versa--are managed and coordinated through one agency--the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The bill will eliminate duplication and allow scarce resources to be focused on achieving the true objective of the Endangered Species Act-- recovery of species through science-based management.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against all of section 334 beginning on page 55, line 6, and ending on line 13.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against all of section 339 beginning on page 56, line 16, and ending on page 57, line 2.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I hesitated to come running back, but when I started hearing many of the things that were offered up by the other side, I decided perhaps I should come back and plead for more trucks, more trucks to come here maybe and haul off an awful lot of stuff that has gathered in the well during this debate, because as I see it, Mr. Chairman, in Idaho we have got a saying, and the saying is basically this: If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. This is the second duck that they have had here today. This is no different than their first effort to stop the free flow of traffic across our southern border. This is no different than the effort that was made much, much earlier. But there are a few things that I would like to clear up. Earlier one of our side was questioned as to whether or not, did the majority not just block an effort, an amendment to change this, to make this right? The majority did not block that amendment. Strict adherence to the House rules that we have all agreed upon about amending appropriation bills is what killed that bill. We made you obey those rules, and in that process the amendment rightfully died. Why, Mr. Chairman, is this here today? Why have we not since 1994 offered time after time after time similar amendments that could have begun the certification process, that could have perfected the safety on the highways and could have gotten this a long way toward accomplishment of what we are asking to do today? I suspect the reason for that is because from 1994 until last year, until this last January, we did not enjoy a trade representative and a USTR that was prepared to have equal trade on both sides of the border and equal treatment on both sides of the border as we do today and as we can expect today. Perhaps I should have offered an amendment, too, to go along with this thinly veiled safety effort; that is, that only trucks that are made in Idaho can be run on the highways, so that I could have closed my market, so that I could have enjoyed a monopoly myself. Mr. Chairman, in 1997, the State of Idaho petitioned the USTR to stop an unfair trade practice on our northern border, our border with Canada. We got no justification. We got no satisfaction. The result was finally our Governor said, all right, if we cannot get the United States Government to do something, perhaps we States ought to unite and do something. And so the northern tier of States did unite. We all put our police to work, our highway patrol to work and our port of entries to work. The result was, and we heard from the ranking member the statistics about how many unsafe trucks there were. I can tell my colleagues that at that time we found 57 percent of the trucks that we put through our safety efforts on our border with Canada, almost 57 percent did not meet the standards in the State of Idaho, and so, therefore, we could halt them at the border and reject them because they did not meet our safety standards. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that you can do just about anything that you want to with statistics. But let me just say, this is not unusual for the United States to do this. We have airlines that cross borders. We have railroads that cross borders. We have no problem with the safety regulations and the equal treatment of both sides. The same thing with our water traffic. And so with all the foreign registry that we have, whether it is on airlines or boats or railroads, we still find that we can have that traffic, and I think that we could use that example, the same thing, on our highways. Mr. Chairman, I think it is time that we recognize that we need to be good neighbors, we need to be fair neighbors and not be picking on those people which we assume are not prepared to meet the standards that we have in the United States. I think it is time to be fair to all sides. I certainly have sat in awe many times and listened to speeches from the other side about treating people equally and being fair. This is your chance to walk the walk instead of just talking the talk.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen). The land acquisition that I would like to bring to the gentleman's attention today is 5,988 acres which is in- holding called Thunder Mountain. Thunder Mountain is located in the Payette National Forest in West Central Idaho and is located in the heart of the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness area. This area is home to five listed species and large populations of game, large game including elk, deer, moose, and bighorn sheep. The purchase of this land would allow the Forest Service to protect the critical areas that are necessary for generations to come. I offer my appreciation to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) in advance for the gentleman's sincere consideration of this effort.

Mr. OTTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. OTTER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

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

Mr. OTTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) I appreciate his concern for those of us in Idaho who are becoming more endangered every year. Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rahall

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the amendment is nothing more than an attempt by the Democrats to congressionally legitimize those actions taken by President Clinton during the last hours, without adequate public input, in the dead of night. These proclamations, of course, clearly abused the letter and the spirit of the Antiquities Act of 1906, when they knew what they were doing. The Antiquities Act, among other things, mandates that when a President declares a monument it ``shall be confined to the smallest area available, compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.'' Now, I know that that means we must question ourselves as to what we mean by objects or what we might mean by protected. However, as we all know, President Clinton blatantly used this act solely for political purposes like no other before him. Mr. Chairman, passing this amendment would in effect put a congressional rubber stamp on those actions and those boundaries taken by these ill-considered proclamations. Secondly, if the boundaries of the national monuments do change, this amendment to the bill today is totally unnecessary. Most, if not all, the proclamations withdraw the lands from all forms of mineral entry, including oil and gas leasing, except when subject to valid and existing rights. This amendment keeps the exemption for valid and existing rights, thus actually does nothing at all, Mr. Chairman, for the monument boundaries if they are never adjusted. Lastly, and however very important, by agreeing to this amendment we also prevent future oil and gas leasing in these areas that would not be withdrawn as a national monument if the boundaries ever did change. If the boundaries are to be adjusted to meet the real intent of the 1906 Antiquities Act and the real intent of protecting the object of significance contained in those monuments, then the areas withdrawn, which would not contain any significant objects, could be open to gas and oil and other exploration. Eliminating future options for our country's resources is simply not acceptable, and I submit that the other side cannot have it both ways. You cannot suck and blow in the same breath, and, Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what they are doing.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, we have heard much about how old this law is and how unnecessary it is in this day and age. I suspect that is consistent with what we have heard today for quite awhile. Mr. Chairman, it seems we forget that there was also a law written in the late 1700s. We call it the Constitution today; yet that law has sustained us pretty well because, for the most part, we have tried to adhere to it. Mr. Chairman, that law written in 1872 was written in the best of times for mining because it was one of the most important economies to the United States. But I would also remind my colleagues, consistent, I suspect with the inconsistency that we hear here that one day it is a good idea to put a rider on the bill and the next day it is not. I am confused by all of this admittedly, Mr. Chairman, and I have only been here 165 days, but I am beginning to learn; and I am beginning to learn that what the people feel about Congress being out of touch, Americans out in the country that feel that Congress is no longer representative of them, now I understand. There is no need to be consistent up here, Mr. Chairman. I have seen it happen. I have seen it happen to my colleagues that have been here far beyond my days and far beyond my years. Because not only do they not remember what they said yesterday, they do not remember that it is the very government that they now want to completely entrust in this day and age with the safeguards of our environment, was the very government that went to the Coeur d'Alene mining district during World War I and World War II and said forget about what you might do to the rivers and lakes, we need those minerals for the defense of that very Constitution, and we need these minerals for the very defense of this country. So if I cannot ask for anything else, I would ask my more learned colleagues who maybe are more learned because they have been here longer to be consistent, if nothing else, and be representative of the law that was written in the 1700s as well as 1872.

Mr. OTTER

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

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). I also want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the sponsor of House Resolution 157, for working to craft this important bipartisan piece of legislation authorizing $200 million in assistance to the States, tribes, and local entities for on-the-ground salmon recovery projects. House Resolution 1157 will ensure that important salmon research, data collection, monitoring supplementation, and other activities will be given priority. It also finally calls for the States to establish specific goals and timelines for salmon recovery projects, and to measure whether or not these activities are actually achieving success. I am cosponsoring House Resolution 1157 because it focuses money where it is proven to be the most effective, and that is at the local and the State level. Mr. Chairman, it has been reported that close to $1 billion in public funds are now being spent directly to recover salmon runs in the Pacific Northwest each year. A small portion of that comes from the States, but the largest chunks are being funded through the electrical power bills of Pacific Northwest residents, and from Federal agencies. Through the budgets of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency, and through the Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada, many, including me, are skeptical that a sufficient return on this huge Federal investment is being realized. Too much money now goes to Federal bureaucracies for permitting, regulating, and enforcing activities against people who are actually improving the life of the salmon. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we need better coordination. We need to seek more realistic, unified goals and better peer-reviewed science before salmon do go extinct. Better coordination and more effective work is already happening on the State and local level, and it deserves the support of this Congress. That is why today I am introducing an amendment that simply recognizes a document produced last July by the Governors of the great State of Idaho, the States of Montana, Oregon, and Washington, two Democrats and two Republicans, setting out a list of goals, objectives, and recommendations on how the region can come together to recover the Pacific salmon. These bipartisan recommendations are philosophically in sync with the goals of this legislation, House Resolution 1157. It also encourages the development of local salmon recovery plans that avoid duplication and top-down planning, with peer-reviewed science and measurable standards. The Governors' plan acknowledges that while human activities may influence fish and wildlife survival, humans are not the only cause for salmon decline. It encourages more study to address the role of the Pacific Ocean on salmon, and calls for the management of flesh-eating predators; that is, the predators that eat the fish as they migrate to the ocean. It responsibly encourages hatchery supplementation, and many important habitat improvements, and it does so without advocating the removal of the four lower Snake dams. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, restates the first goal of the Governors' plan, which is to recover salmon according to the applicable laws, while also adhering to the laws which ensure the continued reliable and affordable power sources that millions of families and businesses in the Pacific Northwest rely on. It also understands the need to balance salmon recovery with the economic vitality of Alaska, California, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment and the passage of House Resolution 1157.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call Vote 126 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea''. I am proud of our Pearl Harbor veterans and the thousands of young men who gave their lives for their country that day.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2043) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2719 South Webster Street in Kokomo, Indiana, as the ``Elwood Haynes `Bud' Hillis Post Office Building''.

Mr. OTTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2043.

Mr. OTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 2043, introduced by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) on May 25, 2001, designates the facility at the United States Postal Service located at 2719 South Webster Street in Kokomo, Indiana, as the Elwood Haynes ``Bud'' Hillis Post Office Building. Pursuant to the policy of the policy of the Committee on Government Reform, all Members of the House delegation of the State of Indiana are cosponsors of the measure. Bud Hillis is a native Hoosier. He was born in Kokomo and attended public schools there. He was a graduate of Culver Military Academy. At the age of 18, he enlisted as an infantryman in World War II and served in Europe for 27 months. When he returned, he received his bachelor's degree from Indiana University and, continuing his studies there, he earned a law degree. He practiced law in Indiana and was chairman of the Howard County Bar Association. He was elected to the Indiana State House of Representatives and served for two terms. Because of a vacancy in the Fifth Congressional District when the incumbent was chosen to fill a United States Senate seat, Bud Hillis was selected to run for the House seat and was elected to the 92nd Congress in 1970, and he served there until 1986. Representative Hillis was a member of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. He was a founding member of the Congressional Auto Task Force and a strong advocate of the Congressional Steel Caucus. Madam Speaker, it is a fitting tribute to name a post office in Kokomo, Indiana, after the distinguished gentleman from that city who selflessly served the interests of his constituents in the State house and in Congress for many years. I urge our colleagues to support House Resolution 2043. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. OTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. OTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, that concludes the remarks that we have on Mr. Hillis. I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for introducing the legislation and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for their kind remarks in the dedication for and paying tribute to Mr. Hillis on this occasion.

Mr. OTTER. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1183) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 113 South Main Street in Sylvania, Georgia, as the ``G. Elliot Hagan Post Office Building''.

Mr. OTTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1183.

Mr. OTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1183, introduced by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), on March 22, 2001, designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 113 South Main Street in Sylvania, Georgia, as the G. Elliot Hagan Post Office Building. All Members of the House delegation from the State of Georgia are original cosponsors of this legislation and support for the post office naming bills from the entire State delegation is the policy of the Committee on Government Reform. G. Elliot Hagan was born in Sylvania, Screven County, Georgia, in 1916. He studied in public schools in Sylvania and then attended the University of Georgia. He also attended Emory University and John Marshall Law School. His varied career included the life insurance and estate planning business, editor of a weekly newspaper, livestock raising, and a member of the Board of Trustees of Tift College. Mr. Hagan served as a representative in the Georgia State House for five terms, and one term in the State Senate. He resigned from the State legislature at the outbreak of the Second World War to serve in the Army Signal Corps for 2 years. Mr. Hagan later became secretary-treasurer and deputy director of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation in 1946, member of the National Council of the State Governments, and a district director of the Office of Price Stabilization for southern Georgia. He was an active member of the American Legion, the Farm Bureau, and the Million Dollar Round Table and was also a Mason, a Shriner, a Rotarian, and an Elk. Mr. Hagan was elected to the 85th Congress in 1961 and served for six terms in Congress until 1973. He was a member of the Committee on Armed Services and chairman of the Public Health and Welfare Subcommittee of the House District of Columbia committee. He died in the town of his birth in 1990. It is appropriate that a post office be named in his honor, a true son of Sylvania, Georgia. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1183, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 113 South Main Street in Sylvania, Georgia, as the G. Elliot Hagan Post Office Building. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.