Richard Pombo

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2178) to make technical corrections to laws relating to certain units of the National Park System and to National Park programs.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 2178, introduced by Senator Domenici of New Mexico, simply makes technical corrections to 15 National Park-related laws passed during the 106th and 107th Congresses. The bill corrects errors in spelling and format, but does not make changes in any of the affected laws. I urge adoption of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 211) to establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 211, introduced by Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, and as amended by the Committee on Resources, contains 11 titles; however, eight of the 11 have already once passed this House. Therefore, in the interest of brevity, I will focus on the two titles that have not yet been considered by the full House, titles I and XI of the bill. Title I would establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area across three counties within the State of New Mexico to commemorate the unique combination of cultures, languages, folk arts, customs, and architecture associated with the Spanish colonization of New Mexico beginning in 1598. Finally, title XI contains language that would ensure the continued availability of the Utah Test and Training Range in northwestern Utah to support the readiness and training needs of the United States Armed Forces. That title takes advantage of the opportunity to make permanent the terms of military access and use, while also taking an important step towards resolving the outstanding Bureau of Land Management wilderness recommendations in Utah. I urge adoption of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1721) to amend the Indian Land Consolidation Act to improve provisions relating to probate of trust and restricted land, and for other purposes.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1721 amends the Indian Land Consolidation Act to provide a new uniform Federal probate code applicable to individual Indian trust lands. It also provides incentives for Indians to write wills, and mechanisms for the Interior Department, tribes and individual Indians to consolidate highly fractionated lands. I urge adoption of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 1791, S. 2511, S. 2178, S. 211 and S. 1721.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, the United Nations' Man and Biosphere Program (MAB) is managed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) headquartered in Paris, France. Although there are 47 United Nations' Biosphere Reserves in the United States that comprise a land area larger than Colorado, this program is not authorized by even a single U.S. law or international treaty. This lack of legal authority is even more remarkable when one considers that millions of acres of private property in the United States are contained within the boundaries of biosphere reserves. To better understand the workings of this program, it was necessary for me to write to Dr. Nataran Ishwaran, Director of UNESCO's Division of Ecological Resources in Paris, France, who oversees the Man and Biosphere Program. I desired to learn more about the process for establishing and terminating biosphere reserves as well as the monitoring UNESCO requires for these designations. Dr. Ishwaran's reply indicated ``Member States wishing to remove the biosphere reserve in its country notifies the UNESCO Secretariat which in turn informs the Man and Biosphere International Coordinating Committee (ICC). . . .The ICC is an intergovernmental body made up of 34 countries, elected in a rotational system by the UNESCO General Conference.'' I commend my colleagues to learn more about the United Nations' Biosphere Reserves by reading this letter by Dr. Ishwaran, Director of UNESCO's Division of Ecological Resources. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, August 24, 2004. Mr. Richard W. Pombo, Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Pombo: I should like to acknowledge your letter of 3 August 2004 and to thank you for your kind words on my new appointment. Our replies to your questions regarding biosphere reserves follow below. They are based on the ``Statutory Framework'' for biosphere reserves, a text negotiated by over 400 experts (including US experts) in 1995 and adopted by the UNESCO General Conference under 28 C/Resolution 2.4 in the same year. This Resolution is considered a ``soft law'' and is not an internationally binding treaty as is for example the World Heritage Convention. The Statutory Framework, and the accompanying ``Seville Strategy'' can be found on the MABnet under http://www.unesco.org/mab/publications/document.htm. It is important to understand that before this Statutory Framework was adopted in 1995, nomination and designation of sites did not follow such a formal legal procedure, and that the criteria for biosphere reserves were much more oriented to either nature conservation or scientific research. As you can see from the definition and ``vision'' for biosphere reserves, the emphasis now is on the combination of three functions of conservation, scientific research and development. This evolution in the biosphere reserve criteria means that the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, which began in 1976, contains a legacy of ``old'' sites nominated by their MAB National Committees but which do not necessarily conform to the 1995 criteria. This is the case in the USA, where sites were designated from 1976 up till 1991. (1) Designation procedure--(see Article 5 of the Statutory Framework): UNESCO Member States make nominations for the designation of new sites as biosphere reserves through their MAB National Committees. The nomination form (http:// www.unesco.org;/mab/docs/brnomform.htm) requires endorsement at the local and national levels. The nominations are sent to the UNESCO Secretariat, which submits them for technical evaluation by the Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves (a 12 person group of experts nominated by the UNESCO Director-General). The nominations are then decided upon in the light of the recommendations from this Advisory Committee by the MAB International Coordinating Council (ICC). The ICC is an intergovernmental body made up of 34 countries, elected in a rotational system by the UNESCO General Conference. In practice the ICC devolves the decision on new nominations to its Bureau (the Chair and the five Vice-Chairs) that meets about once a year. The UNESCO Secretariat then informs the Member State on the decision. As is stipulated under Article 2.3, individual biosphere reserves remain under the sovereign jurisdiction of the States (countries) where they are situated. (2) Monitoring--The Statutory Framework makes provision under Article 9 for a ``periodic review'' every ten years after designation. This is a self-evaluation, carried out by the ``concerned authority'' which in practice is usually the administrative body responsible for the biosphere reserve. The format for this periodic review report is voluntary, but countries generally use the form designed by the UNESCO Secretariat for this purpose (available on: http:// www.unesco.org/mab/publications/document.htm). The periodic review reports follow the same process of technical evaluation and examination as for new nominations. The MAB Bureau makes a recommendation to the Member State concerned on each periodic review report: these recommendations are very often suggestions as to the types of measures which could be taken to improve the functioning of the site under question as a biosphere reserve. (3) Terminating biosphere reserve designation--Technically, this can happen in two ways. As is said under Article 9.8, a Member State wishing to remove a biosphere reserve in its country notifies the UNESCO Secretariat which in turn informs the MAB ICC. A second procedure follows the periodic review process as is stated under Article 9 paragraphs 5 and 6: if the ICC finds that a biosphere reserve does not satisfy the criteria after a reasonable period of time in which the Member State concerned could have taken measures to improve it, the site concerned ``will no longer be referred to as a biosphere reserve which is part of the Network'' (please refer to Article 9, paragraph 6 of the Statutory Framework). In practice this second means has never been used. To date, four countries have asked that non-functional sites be removed from the Network. The UK, for example, undertook a periodic review of all its sites with the biosphere reserve designation (dating from 1977). It recognized that four of these did not and could not meet the 1995 criteria and asked the ICC to remove them from the Network. This was hailed by the ICC as a positive result of the periodic review. (4) Reduction in size of a biosphere reserve--There is no formal provision for this, but logically it should follow the same procedure as for an extension, which is given under Article 5.2. De facto, this means following the same procedure as for new nominations. I trust this answers your questions satisfactorily: if you have any other questions, do not hesitate to contact us. Yours sincerely, N. Ishwaran, Director, Division of Ecological Sciences.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, in 1972 the United States ratified ``The Convention Concerning Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage'' known as the World Heritage Convention. Since then 20 properties in the United States have been designated as World Heritage Sites and operated under a worldwide program administered by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) which is based in Paris, France. World Heritage Sites in the United States were non-controversial until the Clinton administration and over-zealous environmental groups used Yellowstone National Park's World Heritage Site designation to stop a proposed gold mine located on private property outside the boundaries of the park. Many in Congress joined me in believing this mission creep of the World Heritage Convention was never envisioned when the United States ratified it over 30 years ago. I have learned that the National Park Service, pursuant to Article 11 of the World Heritage Convention, has developed a ``Tentative'' or ``Indicative'' List of cultural and natural properties in the United States that it considers suitable for inclusion to the World Heritage List. Presently, this list contains 70 properties in over 30 States and the District of Columbia. Based on the experience during the Clinton administration involving a proposed gold mine on private property located outside Yellowstone National Park, America must be very cautious when it proposes new areas for designation as World Heritage Sites. For example, I note the oil- rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is on the ``Tentative List'' as is the mineral-rich Cape Krusenstern Archaeological District in Alaska. World Heritage Site designation of either area would jeopardize America's national security and international competitiveness. Happily, the U.S. Department of the Interior believes the ``Tentative List'' needs to be updated for a variety of reasons. I encourage my colleagues to read the following letter from Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior Paul Hoffman as well as the present ``Tentative List.'' Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC, August 13, 2004. Hon. Richard Pombo, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of July 13, 2004, requesting information about the United States Indicative Inventory of Potential Future United States Nominations to the World Heritage List. As you know, the Department of the Interior, through the National Park Service, directs and coordinates the United States participation in the World Heritage Convention in accordance with the statutory mandate of Title IV of the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 as implemented by Federal regulations (36 CFR 73). The Indicative Inventory, prepared by the National Park Service in the early 1980s, was developed in compliance with Article 11 of the Convention, which calls on participating nations to submit to the World Heritage Committee an inventory or tentative list of cultural and natural properties that it considers suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List. The purpose of these tentative lists is to enable the Committee to evaluate within the widest possible context the ``outstanding universal value'' of each property nominated to the List. Inclusion on a country's tentative list is required before properties can be nominated to the World Heritage List. However, a listing in the inventory does not confer World Heritage status on the property in question; it merely indicates that a property may be further examined for possible nomination in the future. The complete U.S. Indicative Inventory was published in a Federal Register notice on May 6, 1982. The full notice, including a description and location for each listed property, is enclosed for your review. Subsequently, two properties were added to the inventory: Haleakala National Park in Hawaii, added in 1983; and Taliesin West, Frank Lloyd Wright's winter studio in Arizona, added at the request of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, in 1990. The two additions were made by the respective Assistant Secretaries of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the time, on the recommendation of the Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage, in accordance with the procedures outlined in Federal regulations (36 CFR 73) for implementation of the World Heritage program in the United States. Although conceived as a ``rolling list'' to which additions or deletions could be made, no other changes to the Inventory have ever been made. The inventory was compiled by the National Park Service with input from a wide variety of sources, including Federal and State agencies, elected Congressional and State representatives, private industry, conservation and preservation organizations, academic institutions, local governments, and individuals. A draft of the inventory was published for comment in 1981; the comments received were summarized in the subsequent 1982 notice. Scholarly and scientific evaluation was the basis for selecting the properties listed in the inventory. While the NPS does not have documentation on who suggested which sites should be included in the U.S. Indicative Inventory, we believe NPS units were recommended by the park superintendents and that non-Federal properties were suggested by their respective owners. U.S. law requires that all property owners of record of a site (1) concur with the nomination of their site and (2) that they commit to preserving their site in perpetuity. For a variety of reasons, including its desire to achieve a more balanced and representative World Heritage List by stepping aside to give greater opportunity to other countries with few or no sites yet designated, the United States has not submitted any further nominations since 1994. As stated in the 1982 Federal Register notice, the inventory was intended as a preliminary list of properties that appear to qualify for nomination to the World Heritage List and that may be considered for nomination during the next ten years. From the time when the inventory was published until the United States made its most recent World Heritage nomination in 1994, thirteen of the properties included in it were nominated and listed by the World Heritage Committee. After much consideration, it is our view that the current Indicative Inventory is out of date and should be revised for a variety of reasons, such as the changing views of heritage and concerns about the geographic and thematic representativity of the World Heritage List. Even the approach taken to creating the list now appears outdated. We intend to begin the process of revision early next year and will keep you informed and look forward to your input as we proceed. Thank you again for your interest. Please contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Paul Roffman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. Enclosure. Potential U.S. Nominations From the Tentative List (Complete Text) INDICATIVE LIST, UNITED STATES (by state) Alabama Moundville Site Alaska Aleutian Islands Unit of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (Fur Seal Rookeries) C(vi); N(ii) Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Cape Krusenstern Archaeological District Denali National Park Gates of the Arctic National Park Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve inscribed 1992 Katmai National Park Wranaell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve inscribed 1979 Arizona Casa Grande National Monument Grand Canyon National Park inscribed 1979 Hohokam Pima National Monument Lowell Observatory Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Saguaro National Monument San Xavier Del Bac Taliesin West [added 17 Aug 90] Ventana Cave California Joshua Tree National Monument Point Reyes National Seashore/Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge Redwood National Park inscribed 1980 Sequoia/Kings Canyon National Parks Yosemite National Park inscribed 1984 California/Nevada Death Valley National Monument Colorado Colorado National Monument Mesa Verde National Park inscribed 1978 Lindenmeir Site Rocky Mountain National Park District of Columbia Chapel Hall, Gallaudet College Washington Monument Florida/Georgia Everglades National Park inscribed 1979 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge Georgia Ocmulgee National Monument Savannah Historic District Warm Springs Historic District Hawaii [Haleakala National Park added 21 Aug 83] Hawaii Volcanoes National Park inscribed 1987 Pu'uhonua O Honaunau National Historical Park Illinois Auditorium Building, Chicago Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site inscribed 1982 Carson, Pirie, Scott and Company Store, Chicago Eads Bridge, Illinois-St. Louis, Missoui Frank Lloyd Wright Home and Studio Leiter II Building, Chicago Marquette Building, Chicago Reliance Building, Chicago Robie House, Chicago Rookery Building, Chicago South Dearborn Street-Printing House Row North Historic District Unity Temple, Oak Park Indiana New Harmony Historic District Louisiana Poverty Point Maine Acadia National Park Massachusetts Goddard Rocket Launching Site Missouri Wainright Building, St. Louis Montana Glacier National Park inscribed 1995 New Jersey/New York Statue of Liberty National Monument inscribed 1984 New Mexico Carlsbad Caverns National Park inscribed 1995 Chaco Culture National Historical Park inscribed 1987 Pecos National Monument Taos Pueblo inscribed 1992 Trinity Site New York Brooklyn Bridge General Electric Research Laboratories, Schenectady Prudential (Guaranty) Building, Buffalo Pupin Physics Laboratory, Columbia University Original Bell Telephone Laboratories North Carolina/Tennessee Great Smoky Mountains National Park inscribed 1983 Ohio Mound City Group National Monument Oregon Crater Lake National Park Pennsylvania Fallingwater Independence National Historic Site inscribed 1979 Texas Big Bend National Park Guadalupe Mountains National Park Utah Arches National Park Bryce Canyon National Park Canyonlands National Park Capitol Reef National Park Rainbow Bridge National Monument Lion National Park Virginia McCormick Farm and Workshop Monticello inscribed 1987 University of Virginia Historic District inscribed 1987 Virginia Coast Reserve Washington Mount Rainier National Park Olympic National Park inscribed 1981 North Cascades National Park Wisconsin Taliesin Wyoming Grand Teton National Park Wyoming/Montana Yellowstone National Park inscribed 1978 Puerto Rico La Fortaleza-San Juan National Historical Site inscribed 1983 These sites are further detailed in the following Public Notice in the Federal Register (47 FR 9648), as amended by 48 FR 38101 and 55 FR 33781).

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of H.R. 4045. In San Joaquin County, California, water supplies are being depleted. The region suffers from highly significant groundwater overdraft and saline intrusion. This bill provides a much needed solution to this growing problem. H.R. 4045 authorizes $3 million in federal funding to complete studies that will examine additional surface water supplies, and improve water supply reliability and environmental protection for the Bay-Delta Region. The project's multi-year evaluation would involve the participation and cooperation of a wide range of regional stakeholders and would provide information important to statewide water resource and environmental protection efforts. Areas that will be aided by this bill include Stockton, Lodi, Lockeford, Clements, Waterloo, Farmington, Linden, Wallace, Camp Seco and Valley Springs. A clean, safe water supply is essential to sustain our growing communities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in California's Eleventh District, the City of Morgan Hill and surrounding communities, face a serious problem due to groundwater contamination with perchlorate. Hundreds of private and city-owned wells have been closed, and many residents are forced to rely on bottled water. To help remedy this situation, I introduce H.R. 4459, the Llagas Reclamation Groundwater Remediation Initiative. This bill will provide $25 million in Federal funding to assist the Santa Clara Valley Water District's efforts to identify the scope of the contamination and begin a comprehensive, long-term program to once again provide high-quality drinking water to the area's residents. This funding mechanism is based on a practical working model currently underway in the San Gabriel Basin in Southern California. Everyone agrees on the need for safe drinking water for our communities. This bill reflects this consensus and puts words into action. It is my hope that this bill will act as a successful model for other areas of the country as well. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1658 would amendment the Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance Validation Act to legalize, validate, and confirm as far as any interest of the United States is concerned two additional conveyances in San Joaquin County, California. These conveyances involve lands forming part of a right-of-way granted by the U.S. to the Central Pacific Railroad Company under previous law. This bill would declare the conveyances to be between the railroad company and the Bank of America recorded in September, 1945, and between the railroad company, the Southern Pacific Transportation, and the Tri-Valley Packing Association recorded in November of 1957. In short, this bill would lift the cloud over the title to these lands. This bill passed the House of Representatives by unanimous consent on November 18, 2003. It has been returned to the House for further consideration due to a technical change made by the other body. I support this change, as do the majority and minority of the Committee on Resources and the administration. Mr. Speaker, I understand the Senate amendment has a technical error. It references line 17, but it should be line 15. We are very clear that we are correcting a page reference to a deed book in the underlying bill. Rather than send the House bill back to the other body, we will pass it today and make any technical changes later in the session the Senate enrolling Clerk determines necessary. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. POMBO

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

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple one. No funds in this bill are to be used by the Federal Highway Administration to pursue a nationwide programmatic agreement that would make part of the Interstate Highway System eligible for inclusion on the National Register Of Historic Places. I do not question the historic importance of the Interstate Highway System. Things like the Golden Gate and George Washington Bridges are undoubtedly historic elements that should be protected. However, the importance of these elements does not make the entire system something that should be shoehorned into the Historic Preservation Act. The programmatic agreement has several problems, including the fact that my committee which has exclusive jurisdiction over the National Historic Preservation Act was not included. Another and more basic problem with the programmatic agreement is the fact that it incorrectly assumes that the entire interstate highway system is something that should be eligible for inclusion on the register. In other words, including massive public work projects like the interstate system is not consistent with the intent of the Historic Preservation Act. Little, if anything, would be gained by listing the interstate system on the register and it is becoming more and more obvious that there is a growing effort by some groups to use Federal laws such as the Historic Preservation Act to further a land usage agenda which includes preventing road construction. Finally and most important, adding another bureaucratic layer by listing the interstate system could have the effect of delaying critical safety improvements in a timely way. All of this being said, I understand the Federal Highway Administration may attempt to craft an administrative exemption for the interstate system. It is not my intention that my amendment would affect that effort. Finally, I want to say that dealing with the issue of including the interstate system on the National Register is yet another reason why we need to complete work on the 6-year transportation bill, which will include a strong exemption of the interstate system from the Historic Preservation Act. With that, I ask the support of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise to honor and congratulate ChevronTexaco and their employees located in California's 11th Congressional district on ChevronTexaco's 125th Anniversary. Tomorrow marks the 125th anniversary of the merger of California Star Oil Works and Pacific Coast Oil Co., which formed ChevronTexaco's oldest predecessor. ChevronTexaco's history is a story of great progress and innovation spread over dozens of companies that have come together over the last 125 years to become the ChevronTexaco family. Over 100 years ago, a converted farmhouse and 80 employees in a rural area not far from San Francisco started handling 10,000 barrels of oil a day. Today, with bustling metropolitan communities surrounding the refinery, 1,300 employees move 240,000 barrels of oil per day. ChevronTexaco is one of the world's largest integrated energy companies. They are involved in every aspect of the energy industry, from oil and gas exploration and production to transportation, refining and retail marketing, as well as chemical manufacturing and sales and power production. Active in more than 180 countries, ChevronTexaco employs more than 50,000 people worldwide and about 9,000 in California alone. Over 4,000 of those employees are in San Ramon, the world headquarters for the company. ChevronTexaco's vision--to be the global energy company most admired for its people, partnership and performance--runs throughout the combined history of all the great companies that today form ChevronTexaco. The work undertaken by the many generations of ChevronTexaco has made a tremendous and positive impact on the lives of people around the world. I commend and congratulate ChevronTexaco on this very important milestone.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I request that the attached cost estimate for S. 1576, the Harpers Ferry National Historical Park Boundary Revision Act of 2003, be submitted for the Record.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I could take the entire 2\1/2\ minutes allotted to me to try to correct all of the facts that the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) just put out over the last week or so here. Unfortunately, 2\1/2\ minutes is not enough time to do that, so I would like to get to the substance of what his amendment is trying to do. Earlier in the debate, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) said that this was a new day in politics for committees to begin to frank. And committees have franked before, but I hope it is a new day. I hope it is a new era that we are entering into because when I took over as chairman of the Committee on Resources, one of the things that I did commit to was getting Members of Congress outside the Beltway, out across the country to listen to people that are affected by the laws that we pass in this House. As a result of that, we have held 41 field hearings on the Committee on Resources. And members of my committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, have gone all over this country from Maryland to California, from Florida to Washington to listen to the people that were impacted by the issues that are under our committee. And, yes, we have franked. We have gone into areas and said we are holding the field hearing in this region and we have told people that we are coming and we are going to be there. Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) said earlier in the debate that if it was an interesting enough hearing that the press should be able to cover that and we should not have to frank. And I found that quite interesting coming from him, seeing that last year he sent out 12 notices telling people he was having town hall meetings in his district. So if they were interesting enough, you would not have had to do that. Well, quite frankly, sometimes it is in the best interest of good government to tell people that you are having a field hearing and you are going out there. One of the things that the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) has intimated over and over and over in this debate over the last week was that this was partisan. We sent out pieces in the Democrat districts, in the Republican districts. Everything we sent out had all of the names of the members of the Committee on Resources on it. It was done in a bipartisan fashion. One of the things that we have tried to do on this committee is to work in a bipartisan fashion. And with the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and myself, we have accomplished that over the last 2 years. And to have you come in and try to do this, I think, is absolutely ridiculous. This is something we should be doing. Vote against the motion to recommit.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am pleased today to support the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), on this historic legislation. For over 10 years we have been trying to move this process forward to develop a comprehensive water plan to benefit all of California, and this legislation does just that. This legislation addresses the water needs of California by bringing adversaries together for the first time on many of these issues. For over 30 years, sides have not resolved the Sacramento/San Joaquin Bay-Delta water quality issues. This legislation includes a historic agreement between these parties to once and for all improve water quality by addressing many concerns in the Delta and its tributaries. By improving water quality, everybody benefits. Improved water quality in the Delta means better drinking water for our cities, better water for our farmers, and better water quality for our fish. This bill provides the Secretary with a variety of tools to address this very serious issue, including the purchase of water from voluntary sellers to meet water quality standards. It also gives direction for the implementation of an operational plan for the New Melones Reservoir that will rely on the best available science and coordinate releases to benefit both the fisheries and the water quality for municipal and agricultural users. This bill increases California's water supply through water reclamation and recycling projects, water storage, better operation, and the coordination of Federal and State projects, and the development of water conservation projects that benefit all of California. With an ever-increasing demand for water in the State of California, there is a need to move all of the projects of every type forward quickly and efficiently, and this bill does that. I again want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) on the great work that he did on this bill, and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for working with her subcommittee chairman to make this work. I appreciate all that she put in to make this a good bill.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is not about setting a precedent over the way legislation is done. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) has already pointed out, this is done very regularly in the process here. My colleagues that offer this motion to recommit are not offering a motion to strip out everything that is authorized in this bill. They are only going after specifically the water storage projects. This is a bill that has been in the process, as has been said, many times for over 10 years of trying to come up with a compromise that everybody, Northern California, Southern California, east and west, everybody supported. We were able to put together a compromise with the good work of the subcommittee chairman and ranking member, and now we have somebody coming to the floor trying to blow that up. It is the same thing that we fought through with all of the water problems in California. You always have somebody who thinks they did not get everything they wanted or that somebody else may be getting something, and they try to blow it up. That is exactly what is going on here. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I request that the following letters between the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Ways and Means regarding H.R. 884, the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act, be submitted for the record under General Leave. As you know, H.R. 884 passed the House under suspension of the rules on June 21, 2004. I wish to include these letters between the two Committees concerning the legislation as part of the Record. House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC, June 3, 2004. Hon. Bill Thomas, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I request your help in expediting consideration of H.R. 884, the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act, authored by Congressman Jim Gibbons. The bill authorizes the distribution of a monetary judgment awarded to the members of the Western Shoshone tribe in 1979 based on land claims against the United States and mismanagement of their tribal accounts by the federal government. The funds have been appropriated and have been accruing interest for over 20 years. Under current law, legislation is required before the tribal members can receive their awards and to establish an education trust fund for the tribe. The Committee on Resources favorably reported the bill on October 7, 2003. H.R. 884 is the House companion measure to S. 618, which was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent on October 17, 2003. The Joint Tax Committee has determined that Section 3(c)(3) of the Senate bill contains revenue provisions and would be subject to a blueslip by your Committee. To avoid this Constitutional problem and to facilitate passage in the Senate, I wish to amend H.R. 884 with the text of S. 618 as passed by the Senate and have this considered by the House of Representatives under suspension of the rules next week. I recognize the Committee on Ways and Means' jurisdictional interest in Section 3(c)(3) of the proposed amendment but ask that you allow H.R. 884 to go forward. I agree that by allowing the revised bill to be scheduled, the Ways and Means Committee does not relinquish any jurisdiction over H.R. 884 or similar legislation. I would also support your request to be represented on a conference on H.R 884, if one should become necessary. Finally, I will include my letter and your response in the Congressional Record during Floor consideration of the measure. The Western Shoshone have waited for over 25 years to receive their just awards, and Congressman Gibbons has been a tireless advocate on their behalf. We both appreciate your cooperation on this measure and the able assistance of David Kavanaugh of your staff. Sincerely, Richard W. Pombo, Chairman.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I really did enjoy the comments of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), because I think that they hit on something that has been missing in this debate. We have spent a lot of time talking about two-cycle versus four-cycle and what happens with the noise and the pollution levels, and I think that is extremely important in terms of the debate, but one thing that has been missing in this entire debate was brought up by my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), and that is that all national parks, including Yellowstone, are not managed for their maximum environmental protection. Congress has directed that all parks are managed for two purposes, visitor use and enjoyment and resource protection. The Park Organic Act of 1916 mandates the agency to balance these purposes, so it is illegal for the Park Service to disregard visitor use. I heard my colleague a minute ago stating that mixing up a wilderness area and a park and kind of trying to go back and forth between wilderness and park, they are not the same thing. The purpose of a national park also includes visitor enjoyment and the ability of visitors to go there and be part of that park and see what is happening there. One of the things, one of the disturbing things that has happened with these amendments that have been brought up is they seem to constantly be trying to limit access, the American public to have access to these national parks and not allow them to get inside. That is extremely disturbing. The gentleman from Connecticut was right. These national parks belong to all of us, but if we cannot get into them, then we do not have the ability to enjoy them. These are not wilderness areas; these are parks, and part of that is building visitors' centers, it is building roads, it is getting people inside to enjoy them. Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on the amendment.