Charles Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous-consent request to the gentleman from Washington. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, with the understanding with the gentleman that he will agree with a unanimous consent request that I will make to limit debate on the amendment to 10 minutes, with 5 minutes divided on each side. Does the gentleman share that understanding?

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, and I would ask the gentleman to withdraw the amendment. I would say to the gentleman that I am concerned about high energy prices, and I would agree with him that it would be better to increase the production of oil and gas from our Federal waters, but this year I think the oil moratorium should be addressed with comprehensive authorizing legislation which would guide the appropriate leasing. So I would say to him that we would commit to working with him on this issue and ask that he withdraw his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dicks and I in our original markup, which was a $34 million cut, reinstated $18 million in that first appropriation. Later, we added another $12 million in for that and brought it within $4 million of last year's effort. Now, when the gentleman takes $18 million out of the funding for the Department, we do considerable damage, and the Department oversees one in every five acres of national land, including vital tributaries and recreation areas, and produces over $14 billion in royalty revenue for the U.S. Treasury, and it must have the funds in the operations account. Frankly, if we were doing more harvest in our national forests we would not need this much PILT because that was really where it was to come from when the forests and other public lands were started, but we will try to do what we can. I will yield to the gentleman's amendment, and we will accept his amendment, knowing that in conference we may not be able to hold this third increase.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I agree with the gentleman that plans that identify locally supported and on-the-ground recovery projects are an important part of helping to solve the problems. I would be pleased to support the gentleman by directing the Fish and Wildlife Service work with NOAA fisheries and the local stakeholders. Further, the Committee would be glad to facilitate a meeting as soon as possible with the Fish and Wildlife Service on this important issue. I thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I want to ensure my colleague from California that our water research program should be targeted and focused to solving real water supply problems. I am aware that the Resources Committee is advancing Mr. Doolittle's bill and that reauthorization is needed. I look forward to working with my colleague on this important issue and thank him for bringing that to our attention.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to discuss the matter with the distinguished chairman of the Resources Committee.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield, I realize the threat of the forest fires in Arizona, and I appreciate the hard work this gentleman has done on this issue. I will be happy to work with you to encourage the Forest Service to work on the fire breaks and the hazardous fuel projects in the vicinity of the Payson and other areas such as the gentleman represents in these important needs.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen. I do recognize and appreciate you drawing it to our attention, the significance of the history of this matter, and we will take a look at it and see what we can do to work with the gentlemen.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I, too, am aware of this increasingly difficult situation, not just in the national parks, but along other public lands funded in this bill. They comprise 43 percent of the border, the southern border. We need to work together. I would like to travel to that area. Perhaps we could hold a hearing in that area to draw the attention necessary. We need to work with our friend and former colleague, Rob Portman, once he is confirmed as the new director of OMB to ensure that adequate funds are provided to protect these lands. We have very little money for park rangers for 43 percent of the border. However, I believe that this is primarily the responsibility of Homeland Security. This subcommittee has expressed its concern to the administration over the past 4 years about additional Homeland Security duties imposed on agencies like the Park Service without providing additional funds. We also find in many other tribal lands that we are having some of the same problems.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I am aware of this situation. I understand that the Environmental Protection Agency should soon be releasing the results of the March audit for the Catawba area.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I thank you, Congressman McHenry. I appreciate your leadership on this important issue and assure you that I will look forward to working with you on this issue. The committee will be in contact with EPA on the monitoring of PM 2.5 emissions in the Catawba area of North Carolina. Thank you for your effort.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I can understand the gentleman's concern. The Statue of Liberty was reopened to the public on August 3, 2004, but the crown was not opened at that time, and let me tell you why the crown was not opened to the public: safety and security. The statue has long been recognized by the intelligence community as one of the highest profile targets for terrorists. After the events of 9/11, the Department of the Interior made the decision to close the statue to assess its vulnerability to attack. The Interior Department asked the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and other recognized experts to conduct bomb blast and other security analyses on the statue. Based on the results, the Park Service spent nearly $20 million on numerous safety and security improvements. They did open the statue, except for the crown. The decision was made that the visitors could not be properly protected on the narrow spiral staircase in the crown, the thinnest part of the statue, and the Department of the Interior made the decision not to open that section. So I would urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I am not qualified to speak on why the intelligence service says this, but I would yield to a gentleman to make a comment about who is qualified to make statements on that.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Illinois. I recognize the importance of the Great Lakes as a natural resource and an issue of national importance. I commend those involved in the Regional Collaboration for their work, which will provide research managers and policymakers with a helpful guide in setting priorities and implementing critical resource and protection programs. The committee allocation did not allow us to provide a sizable increase in the funding for the Great Lakes Legacy Act. Indeed, many programs in the bill are funded substantially below the 2006 level while the Great Lakes program received an increase, albeit a small one. I would be happy to work with my colleagues to see if we might increase funding for this program should additional funds be available when we go to conference with the Senate.