Charles Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2691, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the comments of my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). We have had a hard fire season this year. We just passed $289 million, the President just signed it yesterday, so we have added that amount in. We are working with the administration on the new amount, and I have no objection to the recommendation the gentleman has to the committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2691), making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

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

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. In the beginning, there was no limit to snowmobiles in these parks. In the last days of the Clinton administration, the administration barred all snowmobiles from the parks. Clearly, people live in the parks and this was not acceptable, emergency purposes. We had to come up with a program that would be reasonable, and I think this plan that is in place or will be in place is a balanced approach that addresses air quality, noise, wildlife, and safety concerns while continuing to allow the American public access to enjoy the parks during the winter months. For the first time, a strict daily limit will be placed on the number of vehicles, and the snowmobiles must achieve at least a 90 percent reduction in hydrocarbons and a 70 percent reduction in carbon monoxide compared to conventional two-stroke engines. We now have four-stroke engines. The sound question is that no more than 73 decibels of sound, a five- decibel reduction, has been put in place and 80 percent of the snowmobiles will be commercially guided. We have tried to reach a balanced plan that I think is reasonable. I urge a ``no'' vote on 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 Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. A few weeks ago, we passed legislation that would stop the disastrous fires. It will take a long period of time. It will take management plans to be implemented to get rid of the crowded undergrowth and stop the fires that are costing us billions of dollars and burning up tens of millions of acres of our forests. Let me tell my colleagues, these forest plans, and there are 40 forest plan revisions under way, 36 of these plans are more than 15 years old. Unless regulations are changed, 52 more are expected to go beyond the 15-year limit in the next decade. We cannot make any progress in fighting fires, stopping fires, not having to spend the money and the millions of dollars unless we get plans that are going to take less than 15 years, and yet most of these plans are going to do. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind all of us that we spend millions of dollars in research. Science is going on in modern silviculture every year. We have forest research stations, we have private research stations, we have all our universities with schools of forestry participating in the science, and so it is working every day. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment proposes to state a legislative position. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is bad policy. We should not stop all activities on the national level. Each national forest deserves to get decisions based on local commissions and based on specific situations. We have four lawsuits going on this already. One Federal judge has already ruled that there are problems with the Clinton administration's roadless rule. We need to have careful consideration before we lock up these areas and prevent multiple use. Wilderness area designations should be done site by site, not at this broad-brush national level. It is possible that some forests and roadless areas may need some treatments to reduce hazardous fuels. We need to be careful that we do not make a national policy that could lead to dangerous conditions. Half the areas covered by the Clinton roadless rule are at risk for catastrophic fire. The rule makes treatment of these areas a low priority when they should be a high priority. Already this year, fires that have started in roadless areas have destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres and burned several hundred homes. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

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

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

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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 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. 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, 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 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.