Richard Pombo

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I am not talking about the roads that are built already. I am not talking about the roads in existence, not the roads that we have already built. We are talking about the roads that the gentleman wants to stop us from building. How are we going to get into those areas for the public to enjoy them?

Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the roads that the gentleman is specifically saying that we will not build.

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

Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], but I would first like to ask him a question. If many people have fought very hard to preserve these areas for future generations, in that it is extremely important that we preserve our natural heritage and that we preserve those areas for future generations, but if we do not have any access points into these areas, if we do not have any roads into those areas, how are future generations going to get in to see them?

Mr. POMBO. The money that is coming in from private industry, that is creating thousands of jobs, regardless of the efforts of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, they still have some timber jobs, that if that money does not come in, that the taxpayer is actually going to get hit worse because there is no more private industry?

Mr. POMBO. The gentleman is telling me that all of the money that goes to the schools and fire suppression and everything else is still going to be paid for by the taxpayer?

Mr. POMBO. It is going to cost the Government more money to run the program because they are not having any money coming in?

Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say, to clarify what the gentleman is saying, he is saying if we reduce the number of sales that we are going to have less money coming in?

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

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

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 848, legislation to increase the authorization ceiling for construction of a by-pass road around Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park. In 1890, Congress designated the Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park as the first national military park, in recognition of several important Civil War engagements which occurred there. Like many of the Civil War engagements, the site of this battle occurred along an important transportation corridor, in this case the route leading into Chattanooga, TN. Mr. Speaker, there is still a high degree of conflict along that transportation corridor, U.S. Highway 27, but today the conflict is between commuter traffic using this road, and those persons who have come to the park to understand and appreciate the important events which took place there 133 years ago. In fact, 90 percent of the 17,200 vehicles using this road daily, including about 800 18-wheelers, are nonpark visitors. The heavy use of this road intrudes significantly on the historic scene, and makes it almost impossible for visitors of the park to use the road as part of the autotour route. Several years ago, there was a proposal to expand the highway through the park to four lanes. Such a proposal would only have resulted in a greater number of vehicles going through the park. In 1987, Congress passed a law authorizing a bypass around the park in order to protect the park, and improve safety for nonpark traffic. Unfortunately, due to the amount of rock encountered and fill required, the cost for this project has risen since the original 1987 estimate. Even with the Federal/State matching requirements, the estimated cost of the Federal Government for this road has risen to about $52 million. However there is no question this funding authorization is needed to ensure the protection of this important park. I am pleased that Mr. Deal has sponsored this legislation and I am glad to be able to support him today. Quite a few Members of this body, and the other body, believe that the best thing they can do for the National Park Service, or for their district, is to create a new national park area. I am pleased that Mr. Deal has focused on taking care of an important historic park which Congress has already set aside; and as this one issue amply illustrates, there is much work to do in our existing park system. This Congress is focusing its attention on those areas rather than adding to the backlog of projects facing the Park Service, and the national deficit at the same time. I commend Mr. Deal for his work, and encourage all my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal], the author of the bill. [Mr. DEAL of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 848) to increase the amount authorized to be appropriated for assistance for highway relocation regarding the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park in Georgia, as amended.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. POMBO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 the bill just passed.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, apparently the White House is at it again. This time they raided the confidential FBI files of Republican officials, including former Secretary of State James Baker. Let me just read from the AP story about this incident: But among the unanswered questions were, who at the White House knew the files has been gathered and why they were kept at the White House rather than returned to the FBI? The files, 341 of them, almost all of them former employees of Republican administrations, were stored in the White House security office's vault. Mr. Speaker, I guess we can all breathe a little easier knowing that not every Republican was investigated. It was only 341 of them. The White House assures us that this was only a small, innocent bureaucratic mistake. I believe that. I also believe in the Easter Bunny, and that the world is flat. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the White House to come clean.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of the amendment. I think that it is an issue of fairness. It is an issue of fairness to our military, to our young people who have chosen a military career. I also believe it is extremely important that in our universities across this country that they make that an option for our students, for our young people, as an option for a career that they should go into if they do choose to accept Federal dollars and grants. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment and am in strong support of it.

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

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] knows, when this bill originally came up before the committee and my amendment was offered to restrict the creation of a new wildlife refuge without the direct authorization of Congress, it met very little resistance in the committee and, in fact, passed on a voice vote in the committee; because it only made common sense that if we are obligating funds, taxpayer money, if we are obligating Federal funds from a Federal account, that Congress and the authorizing committee, of which the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] is the ranking member, and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] is the chairman, ought to have the ability to ask questions about what the priorities are. There are limited amounts of money that can be expended every year. So it is extremely important that we prioritize where those dollars are going to be spent, what scientific basis there is for creating that refuge, where they want to create it, and that Congress does take that authorization stance. Now, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] brought up that Congress does appropriate the money and it does come through the Subcommittee on Interior appropriations, which is correct. That does happen. But the reason that it happens that way is because Fish and Wildlife goes out, creates a new refuge somewhere, with no congressional oversight whatsoever, obligates the U.S. taxpayer to millions of dollars to purchase that refuge, plus additional operating expenses to continue to maintain that refuge on an annual basis, and our property owners come to us and say, look, we have just been put in the middle of a wildlife refuge. I am now a willing seller because I cannot use my property anymore; or I live under restrictions of the Fish and Wildlife Service now and the only person that will purchase my property now is the Federal Government because they have just designated me a wildlife refuge. So we have to go to the Committee on Appropriations and say, please buy these people's land that we have already taken. There is absolutely nothing wrong with congressional oversight. There is nothing wrong with the U.S. Congress doing the job that they are supposed to be doing, and that is watching over the people's money. I do not understand, Mr. Chairman, how anybody could come down here and seriously say that we should create wildlife refuges, for example, according to Fish and Wildlife Service they purchased a little over 1,200 acres in California last year for a wildlife refuge at the cost of $10.5 million. Now, that is a lot of money. They did that without any congressional oversight whatsoever, without us determining whether or not this was a priority site. And it may have been a priority site, but Congress ought to take an affirmative step, step in and say whether or not it is a priority, whether or not the science backs it up or whether or not there may be someplace else that is a higher priority. To have someone seriously say that Congress should not, and should abdicate its responsibilities and let the unelected bureaucrats, the unelected faceless, nameless bureaucracy take control of money that should be under the direct control of Congress, I do not understand. This is a very important issue. This is not just something that someone came up with at night. Now, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and I have disagreed on a lot of things. He came in with concerns about this and we sat down and we worked out an agreement, and we said anything over 500 acres, or if they want to expand that new refuge so that in 1 year they do not come in and say we are going to buy 490 acres and the next year we are going to expand it with 10,000 acres. We felt this was a reasonable compromise. We felt it was something everyone should support and it should be totally noncontroversial. Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and I are on the same side of something, it should be noncontroversial. It is a good amendment that should pass, and I believe that Congress should not abdicate its responsibilities and we should have full oversight authority over these refuges.

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is absolutely correct. If we want to add to a national park, which may be very important and it may be a priority, Congress must approve that in order to do it. If we want to add to the Forest Service lands, they have to come to Congress to do it. But in this one instance we do not have to do that, and we are trying to correct an oversight.