Charles Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. The question is a question of States' rights and management of wildlife populations. The States have broad responsibility and authority over resident fish and wildlife, including fish and wildlife found on Federal lands within a State. Congress has reaffirmed this authority through numerous acts. States must be allowed to effectively manage resident wildlife populations. This is an authorizing issue and a States' rights issue and this provision does not belong in an interior appropriations bill. So I must urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I oppose this amendment. The amendment would strike the extension of the recreation program which provides resources for the national forests, refuges, and public lands. Over and over again, at many hearings and in visitors' surveys, and in my own travels, I hear that the public wants a recreation program that is consistent and simple. The President fully supports this program. This amendment would confuse the public. I agree with the gentleman that this program should be run through the authorizing committee. Our committee and others have had many hearings on this, and I have assurances that the chairman of the Committee on Resources will work on this issue soon. But for now, it is essential that the recreation industry has certainty and ability to plan ahead for tours and recreation packages. The recreation industry needs to have a full year advanced knowledge of fees in order to plan tours and other services. This program, begun in 1996, allows the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service to charge certain fees for recreation activities and retain the fees at the site to reduce the backlog in deferring maintenance and enhance the visitors' experience. This is not a charge to enter the forest or the reserve, this is a fee for recreational activity. To date, the fee program has raised nearly $1 billion to enhance recreation experiences on America's public lands. If we accept the DeFazio amendment and allow only the Park Service to have this authority, the other agencies will lose some $110 million over the next 2 years that go to maintenance and enhancing visitors' services. We should not give this authority only to the National Park Service. This would cause confusion and inconsistency for our visitors to public lands. We need to work to create a seamless recreation program to make it easier, not more complicated, for visitors to our public lands. The program has been discussed in numerous hearings in both the Committee on Appropriations and the authorizing committees, and has been the subject of several House Floor debates and votes, all of which have supported the program. We need to keep this program going while the authorizing committees address the permanent solution. This funding is very important to provide focused improvements to the huge backlog and maintenance needs and to increase specific services. Please oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle. (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's understanding, and I certainly will be willing to work with him. I want to say at the outset we do not oppose competitive sourcing. I also want to say that this is not a limiting amendment. Section 335 provides that all studies that are currently ongoing for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 shall be completed and the results of those studies should be reviewed before new studies are initiated. The language makes no judgment on what the outcome of those studies should be, and it merely is an attempt to ensure appropriate congressional oversight of this important initiative. The Interior Committee on Appropriations is no stranger to competitive sourcing. In 1996, the committee required the United States geographical survey to contract out 60 percent of its map and digital data activities. In 1999, the committee required the outsourcing of 90 percent of the National Park Service's consultant operations. So we are certainly no stranger in outsourcing, and we do not oppose that at all. What we expect is clear budgeting in annual budget requests the amounts and purpose of the study, complying with the committee's reprogramming guidelines for use of funds that have not been clearly indicated in budget request, and OMB should provide clear direction to the agencies on how to manage these studies in a fiscally responsible manner. We will be happy to work with the gentleman from Texas between now and conference, and hope that we can do that.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes to be equally divided between the proponent and an opponent.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I will be happy to work with you to fund this Indian water rights settlement.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, while I oppose the amendment, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) in opposition.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate the gentleman's tireless effort in trying to work in the areas of budget control. I know yesterday the announcement was made that we are in a deficit of $450 billion. We must work to solve that this year and in future years as we move forward. That is why, Mr. Chairman, we have opposed a number of much larger amendments, of over $100 million or $500 million that have been proposed here yesterday and this morning. We have worked the best we can to balance this bill. We think it is a good bill. There are 13 subcommittees. We work with one, with the Interior and Energy. We hope that we can convince the Senate to go with us and we will come out with a balanced appropriations bill that will be conservative as well as meet the needs of our Interior Department. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto to be limited to 30 minutes to be divided as follows: 10 minutes to the proponent, 15 minutes to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and 5 minutes to the ranking member.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the extra $15 million. We may not be able to keep it through conference, but we will certainly support it now.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. We will. We will try to keep the $15 million in.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I agree that many of our National Forests do have unnaturally dense growth which contributes greatly to the extreme threat of catastrophic wildfire that our forests and communities face. Such fires pose a serious threat to the lives and homes of individuals who live in these communities and also to the health of the forest ecosystem, as the gentleman points out. Using funds and authorities in this act, the professionals of the Forest Service should use the best local information to prescribe treatments where needed to effectively reduce the threat of wildfire by improving the health of the forest ecosystem.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).