Richard Pombo

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it is always interesting to get into these debates, and sometimes I wish we could all live in a perfect world. We are in the middle of a very serious crisis on our national forests and on our public lands. The Udall amendment is designed to prevent new regulations from being implemented for our national forests. Those new regulations were proposed for a reason; and contrary to what some of the rhetoric is that we have heard tonight, the reason that those new regulations were proposed was because of this crisis that we are in with catastrophic fire, with our rural communities economically hurt because of policies that have been adopted by this Federal Government. It currently takes more than 7 years to adopt a 15-year plan. I do not care where one is on the issue. That is ludicrous. So they are trying to fix that. It currently costs in excess of $7.5 million to adopt that plan. I hear people talk about the conservative thing to do. Supporting that is ludicrous. Cost studies demonstrate that these costs increase 30 percent under the Clinton-Gore administration regulations that the Udall amendment would implement. Another study indicated that these 2000 regulations cannot be implemented due to overly complex and detailed procedures, extraordinary data requirements, and scarcity of required technical skills. Increasing cost and complexity would divert scarce resources away from critical management activities. We all come down here, and we fight about where the money should go. And the more complex this is, the worse it is going to be. And yet the amendment would lock that in place. The Bush administration regulations are designed to reduce the time and cost of planning while maintaining sustainability, public participation, and the use of the best available scientific information. We have to really pay attention to what these amendments do. I hear people come down here and say we are going to log without laws. There is nothing in the regulations that removes the Endangered Species Act or the forest management plans or any of the other environmental laws that have been adopted to protect wildlife and to protect our clean water and clean air. There is nothing that removes those. They are trying to make the system work better. A lot of times the rhetoric does not actually match what is actually in the regulations. I would urge my colleagues to take a serious look at this, because we have gone round and round on this. We all want clean air. We all want clean water. We all want to protect endangered species and wildlife. We all want to be good stewards of our public lands. What the administration is trying to do is fix a problem. When California was burning last year, a lot of people saw the light and said, well, maybe we ought to do something about our forests; and we passed the Healthy Forests initiative. This year the fires have started, and many think that this year is going to be worse than last year. We do need to get out front. We do need to do everything that we can to get into our forests and clean them out and have them become sustainable. This amendment takes away the tools that are necessary to speed up that process. This bill that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) has brought out increases the money on the thinning projects by $58 million. It increases by $1 billion the money for firefighting. If my colleagues vote against the overall bill, where are they going to be 2 hours from now when all of that money that is supposed to go to the things they are talking about, are they going to support it? Because that is the good work that has been done by this subcommittee and by my friends on the Committee on Appropriations, because they have recognized that this is a serious problem. I know that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) deeply cares about the environment and the forests, and that is something that he has been consistent on. But I do believe that this is a mistake to adopt this amendment in the way it is written, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment to prohibit the use of recreational fees to indirectly cover any costs of biological monitoring for endangered, threatened, or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. And as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) said, the intention when we passed the demo fee on rec fee programs was to use that money to enhance the visitor experience in the parks. I think we all agreed on that. That was something that was very popular, and it is something that the Committee on Resources is working on right now in authorizing that program to become a permanent or a long-term program. It was never our intention at the time, nor is it now, for this money to be used in this way. I would like to point out that, as the gentleman from California said, they used almost $1 million to do this monitoring, and not only was it for going out and doing monitoring. This nice sand buggy that they have got here was purchased at the cost of $60,000 with demo fee money. That was never our intention when this was originally passed. And I believe that the gentleman's amendment is extremely important in protecting those demo fee moneys so that the money actually goes back into the facility to be used to enhance the visitors' experience in that facility. That was our intention then; that is our intention now. As the Committee on Resources moves forward with making this a more permanent demo fee project, we will make sure that that does not happen again. I fully support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the amendment says that none of the funds made available by this act may be used to adversely affect the physical integrity of Indian sacred sites on Federal lands as such terms are defined in the Executive Order No. 13007, dated May 24, 1996. This sounds pretty straightforward and innocent enough, and who could vote against protecting a sacred site? The gentleman should be commended for his efforts to safeguard areas of cultural significance for Native Americans, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and myself have worked together on a lot of Native American issues over the past several years, and I appreciate their help. The gentleman should be commended for that. The problem with this amendment is simple: It has not been the subject of a hearing in the Committee on Resources. This is because we only saw this amendment for the first time yesterday. There also has not been a process for consultation with the tribes on this amendment, in which tribes have agreed to use an appropriations bill as a vehicle for addressing this issue. No one wants to allow Federal land managers to adversely affect a sacred site. We all wish to protect sacred sites from desecration, vandalism and abuse. But we are then asked to take it on faith alone that this amendment will result in exactly what the author intends. But what will this amendment do? That is the question I have. I do not think any of us know. The gentleman has taken an executive order that was intended to be implemented as policy out of the administration and attached a limitation on funding. As the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) said in his comments, none of us really knows what that means. If there are sacred sites within a national park, which we know that there are in several cases, what does that mean on a limitation of funds on this particular bill? Is the Park Service going to be able to use that park? Is the public going to be able to use that park, if it is in any way determined that that is desecration to the sacred site or could in some way upset that particular site? The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) read what it says in the executive order about defining what a sacred site is. That is an extremely broad definition that we have to work with. What does that mean to the use of those Federal lands? On BLM lands, what does it mean if we have a limitation on using funding? What does it mean to the Fish and Wildlife Service if they are called in on section 7, consultation of the Endangered Species Act, on a military base, and that is determined to be a sacred site? All of those different issues, we have no idea what the real impact of that is going to be. I know what the gentleman's intention is on this particular amendment, and I support the gentleman wholeheartedly on what he is trying to do. But to try to come in on an appropriations bill and attach a limitation on funding on to an executive order, we have no idea what the outcome of that is going to be. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) talked about all of the different laws that we have passed as a Congress to protect Native American sacred sites. If those laws in some way do not fulfill our mission, we should sit down in the committee and work out what amendments have to be passed on those laws in order to achieve what the gentleman is trying to achieve with this particular amendment. I think it is a big mistake to try to do this on an appropriations bill. For one thing, I have not had a chance to talk to any of the tribes about this and what the impact is going to be and how they are going to interpret that. They have been very vocal in their opposition to dealing with Native American issues with riders on appropriations bills. And I cannot imagine at this point in time that they would reverse their stance on riders on appropriations bills, even though they may support what the underlying issue is on this particular one. I reluctantly oppose the gentleman on this particular amendment, because I know that the gentleman's heart is in the right place with what he is trying to do. But I think it would be a huge mistake for all of us. And to my colleagues on the minority side, they have to really think about what this amendment is doing. It sounds good, it is something we all want to do, but we are talking about a limitation on funding attached to an executive order that was never intended to be used that way. None of us have any idea how this is going to be interpreted by the administration. We have no idea how it is going to be interpreted by the courts. And that is where this is ultimately going to end up, and it would be a big mistake for us to go forward with this. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there was nothing to stop BLM from saying no to begin with. The gentleman's amendment tells them they have to say no, and that is the problem. We do not know how this is going to be interpreted. We do not know how the administration is going to take this out; we do not know how the courts are going to interpret it.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, we have a number of sacred sites which are located on national parks, on BLM land, on Forest Service land. How is it going to be interpreted in the courts once a funding limitation is put in place that we cannot move forward with some things on those particular parks? It is not a negotiated settlement; it is not sitting down with the tribes and consulting and trying to work it out. What it is, the gentleman is demanding that no funds be used. That is what the gentleman's amendment does. I just do not believe that because of the process that this is going through, we have had the opportunity to hear out exactly how this is going to be interpreted by the administration and by the courts and where we are ultimately going to end up. I support the gentleman in what he is trying to do, but we cannot do this on an appropriations bill because we do not know what is going to come out of that. I just think it is a mistake to do it in this way.

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

Mr. POMBO. Yes, there have been.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman from West Virginia is fully well aware, I have been more than fair with his issues over the past year and a half and will continue to work with him on any issues that he deems important that have come before our committee. Obviously, I will pledge to him, because I agree with him on the substance of this amendment, I will pledge to him to continue to work with him to try to get this done through the regular order process so that we can actually know where we are going to go.

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just again say that I urge my colleagues to really think about the way that this amendment is working and ask them to vote ``no.''

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. There is one thing that my colleague said that I would agree with, and that is, this is not a debate about whether or not we want to log in the Tongass. This is a much deeper debate than that. Unfortunately, this is not a debate about roadless areas either, because that is not what the amendment does. What the amendment does is it stops all road activity. According to the USDA, ``Wildlife habitat improvement projects on the Tongass often involving thinning timber stands.'' Those would be halted under this amendment. ``Fish passage restoration contracts on the Tongass, which currently involve about $2 million a year, would be eliminated'' under this amendment. ``Roads damaged by storms could not be repaired.'' That would be eliminated by this amendment. ``The ability to construct and maintain roads in campgrounds and other road-based recreation facilities, such as visitor centers, may be eliminated'' under this amendment. ``Under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Forest Service is required to maintain reasonable access to national forest system lands for rural residents dependent upon subsistence.'' That would be eliminated under this amendment. ``If the elimination of funding for road construction and maintenance continues for the long term, it would significantly limit the ability of communities to develop road and utility connection that almost all other communities in the United States take for granted.'' That would be eliminated under this amendment. Unfortunately, we get into these debates constantly, and we debate about whether to log or not to log, roadless or not to roadless, and we have great debates about the future of our country and what our values are and what we should be doing; and I think that is fantastic. We should do that, but when an amendment like this is introduced that, in my opinion, is much more far reaching than even the authors intended, then we end up with people making bad mistakes on it. I urge opposition to the amendment.

Mr. POMBO. I have no time.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I have just myself as the closing speaker. Does the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) have additional speakers?

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time and will just say I appreciate the gentleman from West Virginia's (Mr. Rahall) statement, and we have had over the last year and a half a chance to work together on a lot of different issues. I will tell my colleagues, on this bill we are trying to streamline the process and move it along. The gentleman's example, the letter that he read from the gentleman from Massachusetts, I think is a valuable example of what is wrong with the current system. If you actually look at the letter that the gentleman just read, he does not say in there that the process has not been held up by the current system. He is saying that they are going along with the current NEPA process and the EIS process and everything else, and I agree with that. I believe that NEPA is an extremely valuable tool for the Federal Government and for our bureaucrats out there to make sure that anything that is going forward on public lands has the minimal impact on the environment, and that is what we should do. But in the gentleman's example about someone wanting to build a windmill farm in a pristine site, if that is the case, if someone comes forward with a windmill farm in a pristine site that BLM or Park Service or Forest Service or anyone else says they do not want windmill farms there, they say no. What we are trying to avoid is multiple years of going through the process of studying non-viable options to that specific project, and that is what is considered under current law. If you want examples of where this is not working, all you have to do is look at the difference between New Mexico and Texas. Where in Texas they are developing alternative energy and they have windmill sites on the public lands, across the border in New Mexico they are not building them. It is not because anybody was told no, it is because the developers look at it and they say, I can build here and start within a year or two. If I try to do it on public lands, it is going to take me 4, 5 or 10 years to go through the process. So they do not even try. If you are in favor of doing alternative energy projects, then you have to support this bill, because that is what we are doing. We are trying to streamline the process in order to bring those projects on. The gentleman from Oregon earlier talked about the wind energy tax credit. I am a huge proponent of that. We have windmills in my district. If it was not for the tax credit, they never would have been built. But they were built on private land. None of the public land has windmills on it because of the process that they have to go through. If the gentleman is angry about the wind energy tax credit, that is simple: Just tell the Senate to pass the energy bill. It is in there. We have passed it out of here three times already. So as we move forward with this legislation, I would encourage my colleagues on the left to take another look at it, because this truly is an intent to bring more alternative energy into the process and to make it a viable industry for all of the people that are out there trying to find different ways, other than fossil fuel, to power our country. Finally, I would say to my friend from West Virginia, when you are talking about windmills, you have to build them where the wind is. You cannot go to the developer and say we want you to pick an alternative site. That is like going to your coal miners and saying we want you to pick an alternative site. They have to mine where the coal is. You cannot tell them go look in my district in California. We do not have coal. In your district you do. That is why they mine for coal there. Well, we have wind. That is where the wind is, and that is where you have to build the windmills. That is the same thing on public lands, you have to build them where the wind blows. To try to tell them they have to pick an alternative site, really, you are not accomplishing anything if you truly want to bring alternative energy into the market. Finally, I would just say as we move forward with this bill, if there are specific issues in here that the gentleman wants to work on, I will work with him on it, and he knows that. If it is 20 days or 45 days, we can look at the difference between doing that. But we really do need to move forward with this bill.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman support the bill if we went to a 45-day comment period?

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, it does not change that part. It only changes the 45 days to 20 days. If we went to a 45-day comment period, would the gentlewoman then support the bill?

Mr. POMBO. And are there other things in the bill that change that local comment?

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I would be willing to change it to the 45 days if that is the gentlewoman's opposition to the bill.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the former chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POMBO. The gentleman's statement said, and I appreciate him correcting that, because there is nothing in this bill that slashes the environmental impact statement requirements. There is nothing in this bill that slashes any of our environmental laws.

Mr. POMBO. Where are we cutting out the public?